acf’s commitment to ensuring all youth who are homeless or...
TRANSCRIPT
1
June 13, 2014
Associate Commissioner, Family and Youth Services Bureau
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: RIN 0970-AC43
Dear Sir/Madam:
The undersigned organizations are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed
rules promulgated by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide
performance standards and other guidance for recipients of grants under the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act (RHYA). These policies will help ensure that youth who are homeless or at
risk of becoming homeless receive the full benefit of the crucial protections and lifesaving
services provided by entities receiving RHYA funding, and that these organizations have
sufficient guidance to fulfill their obligations to both the youth they serve and to ACF.
A population of particular concern to us is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
youth population. Among the general population of youth in the United States, between 5 percent
and 7 percent identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.1 But compared to this
relatively small portion of the overall population, LGBT youth are vastly overrepresented among
the homeless youth population. Interviews and surveys of homeless populations at the state and
local level suggest that between 9 percent and 45 percent of these youth are LGBT.2 Population-
based studies also indicate that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are more likely to be homeless
than their peers.3 When LGBT youth are without safe shelter, they also experience extreme
vulnerability to violence, harassment, and exploitation.4 For LGBT homeless youth, the services
provided by RHY programs funded by ACF are absolutely crucial. We, therefore, acknowledge
the importance of ACF recognizing this fact by including explicit sexual orientation, gender
identity/expression language in the proposed rules.
This new language is particularly critical because up until this point, neither RHYA nor its
accompanying regulations referenced LGBT youth. We read such an important addition as
ACF’s commitment to ensuring all youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless
receive vital services under RHY without discrimination and in a linguistically and culturally
competent manner.
These comments reflect ongoing policy concerns and are informed by the lived experiences of
LGBT homeless youth as well as the organizations that serve them. Additionally, we suggest
amendments that we believe help capture the underlying intent of the proposed regulations, to
ensure all youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless receive vital services under
RHYA – without discrimination and in a linguistically and culturally competent manner. We
1 Andrew Cray, Katie Miller, and Laura E. Durso, Seeking Shelter: The Experiences and Unmet Needs of LGBT
Homeless Youth (Center for American Progress, 2013) available at http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/LGBTHomelessYouth.pdf 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.
2
address the following issues of particular importance for LGBT homeless youth and service
providers below:
1. Definition of significant terms (proposed revisions to 45 CFR 1351.1)
2. The purpose of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants (proposed revisions to
45 CFR 1351.10)
3. Priority in the awarding of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants (proposed
revisions to 45 CFR 1351.12)
4. Criteria for deciding which Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant applications to
fund (proposed revision to 45 CFR 1351.18)
5. Additional information for applicants or grantees about other Federal requirements for a
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant (proposed revision to 45 CFR 1351.19)
6. Requirements that apply to all Runaway and Homeless Youth Program local services
grants (proposed revision to 45 CFR 1351.20)
7. Requirements that Basic Center Program grantees must meet (proposed revision to 45
CFR 1351.21)
8. Performance standards for Basic Center grantees (proposed 45 CFR 1351.30)
9. Performance standards for Transitional Living Programs (proposed 45 CFR 1351.31)
10. How and when performance standards for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
will be revised (proposed 45 CFR 1351.33)
Below, we discuss each of these issues in turn.
We look forward to working closely with ACF to address these issues and ensure that every
LGBT youth who is homeless or at risk of homelessness has access to the services they need, and
that RHYA grantees have the guidance necessary to provide these services in a high-quality,
efficient manner. Thank you for your continued efforts to reduce and prevent youth
homelessness, and to assist youth who are homeless.
If there are questions regarding these comments, please contact Gregory Lewis at True Colors
Fund [email protected] or Andrew Cray at Center for American Progress
Sincerely,
NATIONAL Advocates for Youth
American Psychological Association
Campus Pride
Center for American Progress
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Family Equality Council
Funders Together to End Homelessness
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Human Rights Campaign
3
Lambda Legal
League of United Latin American Citizens
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY)
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Council of Jewish Women
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Health Care for the Homeless Council
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
National Network for Youth
PFLAG National
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS)
The Equity Project
The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health
The Trevor Project
Transgender Law Center
True Colors Fund
REGIONAL/STATE Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio
The Correctional Association of New York
Western Regional Advocacy Project
LOCAL Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth (BAGLY, Inc.) (Boston,
MA)
Bridge Over Troubled Water (Boston, MA)
Center for Artistic Revolution (Little Rock, AR)
Center for Family Services (Camden, NJ)
Delta Foundation (Pittsburgh, PA)
Family Builders by Adoption (Oakland, CA)
LGBT Center of Raleigh (Raleigh, NC)
LGBT Community Center of New Orleans (New Orleans, LA)
Lighthouse Youth Services (Cincinnati, OH)
Los Angeles LGBT Center (Los Angeles, CA)
Lucie's Place (Little Rock, AR)
LUK, Inc. (Fitchburg, MA)
Memphis Gay & Lesbian Community Center (Memphis, TN)
Miami Coalition for the Homeless (Miami, FL)
Milwaukee LGBT Community Center (Milwaukee, WI)
Oasis Youth Center (Tacoma, WA)
one n ten (Phoenix, AR)
Preble Street (Portland, ME)
4
Pridelines Youth Services (Miami, FL)
Q Center (Portland, OR)
Rainbow Center (Tacoma, WA)
Ruth Ellis Center (Detroit, MI)
SMYAL: Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders (Washington, DC)
Teen Living Programs (Chicago, IL)
The Alliance for GLBTQ Youth (Miami, FL)
The Bridge for Youth (Minneapolis, MN)
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York, NY)
The Link (Minneapolis, MN)
The OutCenter (Benton Harbor, MI)
Time Out Youth Center (Charlotte, NC)
You Gotta Believe (New York, NY)
5
1. Definition of significant terms (proposed revisions to 45 CFR 1351.1)
We support ACF’s revision to the terms contained in this section to reflect statutory changes
and administrative practices with respect to RHYA programs. These amendments will assist
in focusing the terms of these regulations on the purposes of the programs operated under
RHYA to better serve LGBT youth. To this end, we request additional clarity around several
of the terms proposed by ACF and suggest proposed amendments to make certain that the
lived experiences of LGBT youth are properly addressed.
Counseling services
The definition of counseling services proposed by ACF reflects the intent to focus on the
important services provided to meet the needs of youth and to alleviate problems and conflict
that put the youth at risk of, or in the state of being homeless. We request two amendments to
the proposed language to further this intent and to reflect the diverse needs of youth receiving
counseling services.
First, we believe that the definition should reflect that services and supports provided as part
of a package of counseling services may, but do not by necessity, include the family of a
youth who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. For many youth, and in particular
LGBT youth, introduction of family members into a counseling session may jeopardize the
safety of the youth being served, or may compromise the progress of a youth in developing a
plan for healthy, safe, and supported exit from RHYA-supported services. By providing this
additional clarity, the definition will focus on the underlying standard for these services,
which is the best interest of the youth.
Additionally, we recommend that ACF provide a definition of “family” that would reflect the
reality that many youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless may have strong,
stable, and supportive relationships with adults other than their legally-recognized parents or
guardians. These support structures are often known as “families of choice.”5 These
individuals may benefit from counseling services to assist a youth in reconciliation with their
legally-recognized families or guardians, or in the event the reconciliation or reunification
may not be in the best interest of the youth, may benefit from these services to assist in
creating a structured and supportive environment for the youth to transition out of RHYA-
funded services.
Finally, in order to capture the diversity of the population who may be eligible for or
receiving counseling services, we propose an amendment to the text of the definition to
reflect that some youth who are at risk for homelessness may not be at risk for running away,
but may be at risk for homelessness because of parental abandonment or rejection. The
population of LGBT youth who would fall into this category is significant – a recent national
5 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
“A Provider’s Introduction to Substance Abuse Treatment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals”
(2001) available at http://store.samhsa.gov/product/A-Provider-s-Introduction-to-Substance-Abuse-Treatment-for-
Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-and-Transgender-Individuals/SMA12-4104.
6
survey found that forty-three percent of providers report that youth they serve were “forced
out” of their homes by their parents because of sexual orientation or gender identity.6
To achieve these objectives and further the intent of ACF, we propose the following
revisions (strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
Counseling services means the provision of guidance, support, referrals for services
including, but not limited, to health services, and advice to runaway or otherwise
homeless youth, and their families, as well as to youth and families when a young person
is at risk of running away running away or becoming homeless, and where appropriate
and in the best interest of the youth, to families of youth – including, if appropriate,
individuals identified by such youth as family - who are homeless or at risk of becoming
homeless or running away. These services are designed to alleviate the problems that
have put the youth at risk of running away or becoming homeless or contributed to his or
her running away or being homeless.
Culturally and linguistically appropriate services
Throughout these proposed rules, ACF demonstrates a clear intent to ensure that grantees
provide services that are culturally sensitive and meet the needs of the diverse youth who rely are
served by RHYA-funded programs. Throughout our comments, we recommend that ACF
address this need for culturally competent service delivery through the framework of “culturally
and linguistically appropriate services,” a concept that has been used in other contexts – most
notably healthcare – to describe the range of appropriate and necessary practices to ensure that
service delivery is appropriate for the needs of the individuals and populations being served.
Because cultural and linguistic appropriateness are recurring themes throughout these rules, we
strongly recommend that ACF add the following uniform definition that would provide clarity to
grantees regarding their obligations to provide culturally sensitive and culturally and
linguistically appropriate services:
Culturally and linguistically appropriate services means provision of services that are
responsive to diverse cultural health beliefs and practices, preferred languages, health
literacy and other communication needs, as described in the National Standards for
Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care and the
National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and
Health Care: A Blueprint for Advancing and Sustaining CLAS Policy and Practice.
Health care services
The definition of health care services proposed by ACF covers the appropriate range of services
provided to meet the health care needs of youth in RHY programs. In particular, we appreciate
the inclusion of mental and behavioral health services. LGBT youth are disproportionately at
6 Laura E. Durso and Gary J. Gates, “Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Service Providers
Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth who are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming
Homeless” (Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund, 2012), available at
http://fortytonone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-Final-Report-7-11-12.pdf.
8
The definition of home-based services proposed by ACF appropriately focuses on efforts to
prevent youth from becoming homeless and to address the needs of youth who are currently
homeless. To further the intent of ACF to focus on provision of appropriate services in the best
interest of the youth being served, we recommend revision to the language of this definition to
clarify that home-based services to assist with reunification of runaway youth with their families
are appropriate where such efforts are in the best interest of youth.
To achieve this objective and further the intent of ACF, we propose the following revisions
(strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
Home-based services means services provided to youth and their families for the purpose
of preventing such youth from running away or otherwise becoming separated from their
families and assisting runaway youth to return to their families, – including, where
appropriate and in the best interest of the youth, individuals identified by such youth as
family - where in the best interest of the youth. It includes services that are provided in
the residences of families (to the extent practicable), including intensive individual and
family counseling and training relating to life skills and parenting.
Homeless youth
We believe the definition of homeless youth accurately captures the appropriate statutory
guidelines for youth eligible for RHYA-funded programs under this Part. We request additional
clarity from ACF regarding the meaning of “safety” for the purposes of this definition. We
would recommend that the term be interpreted broadly here to include not only safety from
physical harm, but also from emotional and mental harm. For LGBT youth, it is important that
programs retain the ability to serve youth whose homes are unsafe because of family rejection,
which can cause significant emotional and psychological harm to youth when parents fail to
accept their identities.10 The fact that family rejection can result in negative outcomes for LGBT
youth is well established in research tracking LGBT young adults who were highly rejected by
their parents. Compared to their LGBT peers who did not experience family rejection, these
youth were 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide, reported depression rates 6 times as high,
and were more than 3 times as likely to be at high risk for HIV.11
Runaway youth
10 Caitlin Ryan and others, Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults, Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 123, 346-352 (2009)
(Finding that LGB young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times
more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times
more likely to report illegal drug use, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual
intercourse, compared with peers from families with no or low levels of family rejection) available at
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/346.full.pdf+html. 11 Caitlin Ryan, Supportive families, healthy children: Helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender
children (Marian Wright Edelman Institute at San Francisco State University, 2009) available at
http://sait.usc.edu/lgbt/files/Supportive%20Families%20Healthy%20Children.pdf.
9
We believe the definition of “runaway youth” proposed by ACF accurately conveys the situation
of many of the youth who are served by RHYA-funded programs. However, we want to ensure
that the scope of this definition, when read together with the definition of “homeless youth” does
not limit the ability of grantees to serve youth who leave their place of legal residence at the
behest of a parent or legal guardian. These youth are unquestionably within the population of
youth intended to be served under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and it is crucial that
these youth fit within the definitions establishing the standards for eligibility to be served by
grantees.
Safe and Appropriate Settings When Exiting Basic Center Program Services or Transitional
Living Program Services
We support ACF in providing definition for exits from Basic Center Program (BCP) and
Transitional Living Program (TLP) services that do not meet the intended purposes of these
programs. These purposes, as defined by Section 382(a) of the Act, are 1) alleviating the
problems of runaway and homeless youth; 2) where applicable and appropriate, reuniting such
youth with their families and encouraging the resolution of intrafamily problems; 3)
strengthening family relationships and encouraging stable living conditions for such youth; and
4) assisting such youth to decide upon a future course of action.
We strongly support ACF in concluding that other shelters, the street, other residential programs
where a youth does not pay rent or did not plan for such exit, correctional institutes or detention
centers, unspecified living situations, and unknown living situations are all inappropriate exits,
and that such exits from BCP and TLP programs would not meet the purposes outlined in
Section 382(a) of the Act. However, we believe that there are circumstances for many youth
where exiting to a private residence where a youth does not pay rent and is not staying with their
family would be an appropriate, safe, and stable transition that would meet the objectives of
Section 382(a) of the Act. The current definition at this part would define such a living
arrangement as not being an exit.
For many LGBT youth, episodes of homelessness are triggered by rejection on the part of their
parents or legal guardians. Multiple studies confirm that family rejection based on sexual
orientation and/or gender identity is a significant driver behind LGBT youth homelessness. The
California Homeless Youth Project estimates that 25 percent to 40 percent of LGBT homeless
youth leave home due to conflicts with family members because of their identity.12 Similarly, the
LGBT Homeless Youth Provider Survey identified family rejection as one of the top reasons
why LGBT youth were believed to be homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. Forty-six
percent of providers indicated that youth had “[run] away” from home because of family
rejection based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 43 percent indicated that youth
were “forced out” by their parents because of sexual orientation or gender identity.13
12 Cray, Miller, and Durso, Seeking Shelter: The Experiences and Unmet Needs of LGBT Homeless Youth (citing:
Shahera Hyatt, “Struggling to Survive: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning Homeless
Youth on the Streets of California” (California Homeless Youth Project, 2011) available at
http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/StrugglingToSurviveFinal.pdf.). 13 Ibid. (citing: Laura E. Durso and Gary J. Gates, “Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Service
Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth who are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming
10
However, whereas many of these youth lack appropriate supports from their biological or
legally-recognized families, they may have alternate supports from adults to whom they are not
related. As was discussed previously in these comments, these support structures are often
referred to as “families of choice.”14 Where a youth, in consultation with these supportive adult
figures, can develop a future course of action, identify a stable living environment in the private
residence of these adults, and could transition out of a BCP and TLP into that living environment
without a condition of paying rent, we believe that such a transition would be an appropriate exit,
and would satisfy the objectives established by Section 382(a) of the Act.
We also believe there are circumstances where transitioning to a TLP or to the foster care
system, which do not require rent to be paid, can be a positive move for a young person. Exit to
these programs can enable minors who cannot sign a lease or pay rent to focus on finishing high
school, work to buy what they need to meet their basic life needs, and plan for additional
vocational training or education. These exits can also provide valuable support to LGBT youth
who may need a longer period of support given rejection-based trauma, lack of safety net, and
employment discrimination. Thus, we believe that planned transition to residential programs –
even if a youth is not paying rent – constitute safe and appropriate exits.
To reflect that such living arrangements would meet the objectives of the statute and clarify that
exit to settings where youth reside with stable and safe adult figures outside of their family or are
provided with support through residential programs are appropriate exits from BCP and TLP
programs, we strongly recommend amending this portion of the definition to read (underline
indicates addition):
Safe and Appropriate Settings When Exiting Basic Center Program Services or
Transitional Living Program Services means settings that reflect achievement of the
intended purposes of the Basic Center and Transitional Living programs as outlined in
section 382(a) of the Act. Safe and Appropriate Settings When Exiting Basic Center
Program Services or Transitional Living Program Services are not exits:
(1) To another shelter;
(2) To the street;
(3) To a private residence, other than a youth who is staying stably with family, -
including, if appropriate, individuals identified by such youth as family – if the
youth is not paying rent;
(3) To another residential program if the youth is not paying rent or if the youth’s
transition to the other residential program was unplanned;
(4) To a correctional institute or detention center if the youth became involved in
activities that lead to this exit after entering the program;
(5) To an unspecified other living situation; or
Homeless” (Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund, 2012), available at
http://fortytonone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-Final-Report-7-11-12.pdf.). 14 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, “A Provider’s Introduction to Substance Abuse Treatment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Individuals.”
12
part with the language of the Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in
Health and Health Care published by the Office of Minority Health through the following
revision to the language following “…and services, including…”(strikethroughs indicate
deletions and underline indicates additions):
Services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate (as described in the National
Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health
Care and in the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services
in Health and Health Care Blueprint for Advancing and Sustaining CLAS Policy and
Practice), responsive to their complex social identities (i.e., race, ethnicity, nationality,
education, age, religion/spirituality, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation,
gender, socioeconomic status, physical or mental ability, language, beliefs, values,
behavior patterns, or customs), and acknowledge the environment they come from.
3. Priority in the awarding of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants (proposed
revisions to 45 CFR 1351.12)
We support the standards proposed by ACF for prioritizing awards of Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program grants. We further support weighing the prior experience of existing grantees
along with performance and their ability to continue to meet program standards, including grant
requirements established by these proposed regulations.
ACF requests comments on these priorities and ways to refine them. We believe it is essential
that agencies demonstrate adequate performance and compliance with conditions of grant awards
or demonstrate the capacity to meet these standards and requirements. Of particular importance
to us is that demonstrated performance or ability to comply with nondiscrimination requirements,
performance or ability to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services, and
demonstrated experience or ability to serve vulnerable or underserved youth populations be
considered in the priority of grant awards. It is crucial, particularly given the disparity in rates of
homelessness between LGBT youth and non-LGBT youth, that priority be given to applicants
providing (or who can provide) services without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
or gender identity or expression and that can provide grant-funded services in a manner that
meets the needs of LGBT youth who are among the population being served. We believe that
prioritizing these applicants would be in line with the language currently proposed for this
section, as well as the purpose of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants articulated
at 1351.10.
Additionally, to ensure consistency between these regulations and existing statutory
requirements establishing priority in awarding grants to existing grantees, we recommend
amending the concluding sentences of this section. Existing statute establishes priority for grant
applicants with past experience in serving runaway and homeless youth and for BCP grant
applicants requesting less than $200,000.15 RHYA does not prioritize TLP or Street Outreach
Program applicants requesting less than $200,000. The current language proposed by ACF does
15 See Runaway and Homeless Youth Act §§311(b)(1), 313(b)(1)-(2), 322(b), 355(b).
13
not sufficiently distinguish between BCP and other programs in priority, and does not directly
state the priority granted to existing grantees.
To refine the priorities proposed by ACF in this manner, we recommend the following revisions
(strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
In making Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants to existing grantees, prior
experience shall be weighed along with performance; therefore the Secretary or the
Secretary's designee gives priority to those public or private agencies that have performed
highly in comparison to other agencies receiving grants in past years, both in meeting
applicable performance standards and in complying with applicable conditions of grant
award or execution required under these regulations or under funding opportunity
announcements.
In making awards to new applicants or to existing grantees seeking to expand to a new
service area, consideration will be given to the likelihood that the applicant or grantee, in
comparison to the performance of other new applicants or of existing grantees providing
the same type of services, will be able to meet applicable performance standards and
other regulatory requirements under this Part or funding opportunity conditions,
including, but not limited to: in comparison to the performance of other new applicants or
of existing grantees providing the same types of services. the requirements under
§§1351.13 – 1351.32 of this Part and nondiscrimination requirements at 42 U.S.C. §
18116.
Additionally, in making awards to new applicants or to existing grantees, consideration
will be given to the likelihood that the applicant or grantee will be able to provide
services that are responsive to the complex social identities of the youth they serve,
including, but not limited to, the applicant or grantee’s ability to:
Provide services in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner;
Demonstrate experience or capacity in provision of services to vulnerable and
underserved youth populations; and
Submit statistical reports on the demographic characteristic of clients served in
accordance with guidance provided by HHS.
The Secretary also gives priority to applicants that have past experience in serving
runaway or otherwise homeless youth. new or existing Basic Center Program,
Transitional Living Program (including Maternity Group Homes), and Street Outreach
Program applicants whose total grant requests for services to runaway or otherwise
homeless youth are less than $200,000 and whose project budgets, considering all
funding sources, are smaller than $200,000. These amounts are subject to adjustment in
funding opportunity announcements as necessary to reflect inflation.
4. Criteria for deciding which Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant applications
to fund (proposed revision to 45 CFR 1351.18)
14
We support ACF’s proposed revisions to criteria for deciding which Runaway and Homeless
Youth Program grant applicants to fund.
We request clarification that it is a minimum standard, in accordance with subsections (a) and (j),
that applicants for Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants attest to their compliance with
the full scope of applicable nondiscrimination requirements established by federal law and
regulation, including those described at § 1351.19, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 18116, which is
applicable to all health programs and activities as well as all programs and activities
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
We further request clarification on the assessment of criteria related to provision of culturally
and linguistically appropriate services. Under § 1351.10, provision of services that are
linguistically appropriate and responsive to complex social identities (i.e. services that are
culturally and linguistically appropriate) is one of the purposes of Runaway and Homeless Youth
Program grants. Thus, the capacity to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services
should be addressed through subsections (a), (g), (h), (i), and (j). We underscore the importance
of providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services as a minimum standard for meeting
the objective of Program grants and not as a desirable or aspirational best practice.
Finally, to align the proposed language at this section with the number of appropriate safe exits
from RHY programs, we recommend the following addition of language to the text at paragraph
(d) (underline indicates addition):
(d) Plans for meeting the best interests of the youth involving, when possible, both the
youth and the family. The plans also must include methods for assuring the youth's safe
return home or to local government officials or law enforcement officials or to
appropriate alternative living arrangements and indicate efforts to provide appropriate
alternative living arrangements;
5. Additional information for applicants or grantees about other Federal requirements for
a Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grant (proposed revision to 45 CFR 1351.19)
We support ACF’s proposal to add clarity concerning the applicability of certain civil rights rules
and regulations to programs receiving RHYA grants. We note that in adding reference to 45 CFR
Part 86, ACF incorporates the sex-based protections of Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972. As the Department of Education has clarified recently, the protections of Title IX extend to
discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression,16 and thus grantee compliance with
the regulations listed at this section will necessarily have to ensure that their programs and
services do not discriminate against transgender clients on the basis of sex, gender identity or
expression.
We request clarification regarding the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 18116 to grantees under
subsection (a).
16 See e.g. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual
Violence” (2014) available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf.
15
While we acknowledge that ACF does not intend to list the full scope of civil rights rules or
regulations applicable to grantees, we are concerned that the list of rules and regulations at this
part does not include reference to 42 U.S.C. § 18116, which applies to all programs administered
by the Department of Health and Human Services and covers many of the protected classes using
many of the same references to civil rights statutes proposed here by ACF. We note also that to
the extent state agencies or licensing bodies receive funding from HHS or are regulated by HHS,
42 U.S.C. § 18116 prohibits discrimination by these entities, as well. We request clarification
that grantees will be informed of their nondiscrimination obligations under 42 U.S.C. § 18116,
and that ACF will engage in appropriate action to ensure adoption of these standards among
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grantees. We further request that ACF consider
amending these regulations to incorporate the implementing regulations for 42 U.S.C. § 18116
when they are promulgated.
We request both a clarification and an amendment to the language of subsection (b)(5) regarding
requirements with respect to nondiscrimination.
We support ACF’s intent to codify a nondiscrimination standard that would address the holistic
and individualized needs of runaway and homeless youth at proposed subparagraph (b)(5). We
further support ACF’s intent to incorporate requirements related to training on, and provision of,
culturally and linguistically appropriate services to these youth. However we believe that
clarification of the language in this subparagraph is necessary to ensure that grantees are aware
of their obligation both to admit eligible youth into their programs and facilities and to provide
those youth with services and programming that is appropriate for their complex social identities,
inclusive of elements of cultural and linguistic access.
As it currently reads, the proposed language at this subsection does not provide a clear standard
with respect to nondiscrimination. Given that this section exists in close connection with the list
of applicable civil rights standards at subsection (a), it may appear that ACF would require
grantees to observe the nondiscrimination requirements of the civil rights rules enumerated in
subsection (a), and that this subparagraph would provide standards for the culturally and
linguistically appropriate provision of services, rather than itself constituting a requirement to
refrain from discrimination. It is particularly important for LGBT youth who are served by these
programs that grantees are explicitly informed of their obligations to refrain from discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well as to provide services that are
respectful of and, where appropriate, responsive to their social identity with respect to these
characteristics. Codifying both of these requirements is necessary to ensure that LGBT youth are
provided with meaningful access to programs that meet their individual needs.
In addition to providing clarity regarding the distinct obligations with respect to
nondiscrimination and provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services, clarifying
the nondiscrimination provision to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity or expression would unify the nondiscrimination requirements
applicable to RHYA grantees with those applicable shelter and temporary housing programs
funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In February 2012, HUD
issued regulations explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
16
gender identity in all federally-funded housing programs.17 While ACF has sufficient statutory
authority to implement explicit nondiscrimination requirements on these bases apart from HUD’s
action with respect to federally-funded housing programs, incorporating an explicit
nondiscrimination provision into these rules would nonetheless harmonize the requirements
applicable to the many grantees receiving funding from both HUD and HHS.
We also request amendment of the language of subsection (b)(5) with respect to “gender
specific” services
We support the intent of ACF at this subparagraph to ensure that services that are provided to
runaway and homeless youth are appropriate for the characteristics of those youth, including
gender. There may be some limited circumstances in which services may be provided in a
manner that is responsive to different experiences of youth with respect to gender, particularly
when these services are provided in a trauma-informed context in response to sexual exploitation
or for youth who have been subjected to human trafficking. It may also be that in circumstances
where youth cannot be provided with individual housing or shelter, service providers may find it
necessary to provide housing in a manner that separates youth on the basis of gender.
We are concerned, however, at the use of the term “gender specific” to describe the
circumstances in which these types of services may be provided differently to youth of different
genders. In the first instance, an initial reading of this subparagraph would indicate that all
service delivery must be gender specific, rather than reflecting the fact that provision of services
to runaway and homeless youth can often be done without requiring separate programming on
the basis of gender. Further, by delineating “male, female, and transgender” youth, it may appear
to some service providers who are unfamiliar with transgender youth that the provision of
gender-appropriate services would, in fact, require the segregation of transgender youth from
male and female peers, with whom they may identify and share the same experiences and needs.
While there may be limited circumstances in which transgender youth have unique needs that
could merit programs that are tailored to their experiences of being transgender, often the
provision of gender appropriate services is a matter of allowing a transgender youth to participate
in programming that is appropriate for their gender identity, or with the gendered group where
they feel most safe and supported. As ACF recognizes, provision of gender appropriate services
requires sensitivity to the diverse experiences of youth, and the process of determining what
services are appropriate for a transgender youth may require individualized consultation with the
youth, rather than a blanket determination of what services are necessary or appropriate based on
their legal gender, anatomical sex, or gender expression.
To provide additional clarity to grantees regarding their obligations with respect to
nondiscrimination, gender-appropriate, and culturally responsive provision of services, we
propose the following (strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
(5) Non-discriminatory Culturally and linguistically appropriate services and training.
Service delivery and staff training must comprehensively address the individual strengths
17 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of
Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Final Rule” (February 3, 2012) available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-
2343.
18
Additionally, we request clarification that the term “crisis intervention techniques” should be
interpreted to include knowledge and training for suicide prevention and crisis intervention, as
suicide is a particularly critical issue for the LGBTQ youth population.18
Paragraph (c)
We support the clarifying revisions to paragraph (c) to incorporate reporting on management and
performance information and to remove quotations to previous iterations of the Act.
In this paragraph, ACF also welcomes comments on RHYMIS. We applaud the explicit
inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection within RHYMIS, as the
database is an important tool for understanding the demographics homeless youth and for
monitoring the outcomes of youth serviced through RHYA-funded programs. However, with
respect to information on the sexual orientation and gender identity of youth served through
RHYA programs, we believe that there may be limitations or challenges faced by grantees in
supplying these data through RHYMIS.19 For example, we note that there appear to be
significant disparities in the number of LGBT youth reported to have participated in grantee
programs when compared to other estimates of the number of LGBT youth who are homeless.20
To address these challenges, and to support the collection of more robust data on the
demographics and outcomes of LGBT youth in grantee programs, we strongly recommend that
ACF provide a combination of guidance, technical assistance, and training on collection of
sexual orientation and gender identity data, as well as other aspects of reporting through
RHYMIS.
Paragraph (d)
We strongly support the additional outreach requirement proposed by ACF, and agree that
outreach is a key statutory requirement for the three major grant programs addressed in this
section. Coordinated outreach efforts to homeless youth and youth at risk of becoming homeless
are clearly important activities to ensure that vulnerable youth – including LGBT youth – are
made aware of the services available to them. We encourage ACF (and broadly, HHS) to provide
training on culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach to LGBT youth as part of the
proposed technical assistance and training related to “special populations.”
Paragraphs (e) and (f)
We support ACF’s proposal at paragraph (e), and agree that it is important that grantees develop
and implement plans for youth who run away from foster care placement or correctional
institutions, and for the appropriate return to these organizations in accordance with applicable
law and where such return would be in the best interest of the youth. We request further
clarification from ACF regarding the range of Federal, State, or local laws that may apply in
these situations.
18 See James M. Van Leeuwen et al., “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Homeless Youth: An Eight City Public Health Perspective,”
Child Welfare 85 (2) (2005): 151-170 19 Andrew Burwick, Vaness Oddo, Laura Durso, Daniel Friend, and Gary Gates, Identifying and Serving LGBTQ
Youth: Case Studies of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Grantees (Mathematica Policy Research 2014). 20 See e.g. Cray, Miller, and Durso, Seeking Shelter: The Experiences and Unmet Needs of LGBT Homeless Youth.
19
However, we disagree with the proposal put forth at paragraph (f). When read in conjunction
with paragraph (e), it appears that service providers would be forced to return all youth who run
away from foster care placements or correctional institutions, and to develop and implement
plans to keep any youth who is under the jurisdiction of those systems within those systems,
without consideration of whether continued placement is immediately safe or in the best interest
of the youth. The rigidity of paragraph (f) removes the ability of service organizations to
implement a plan for appropriate return of youth (pursuant to paragraph (e)) – when an
immediate return of a youth to a foster care placement or correctional institution would not be
safe or in the best interest of the youth presenting themselves to the service provider. The
outcome of removing this discretion – and of, in essence, prohibiting the provision of RHY
grant-funded services to youth who run away from these systems – is that youth who flee these
systems in the event of abuse or other unsafe conditions will be left to their own devices.
Ultimately, this creates a system where vulnerable youth are left without options – perpetuating
their status of being unstably housed, rather than promoting the purpose of the program grants –
“to establish or strengthen community-based projects to provide…shelter and transition services
to runaway…youth or youth at risk of running away or becoming homeless.”
For example, if a youth who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is placed in a foster care
setting where their foster parents penalize or abuse that youth for expressing their identity, or
have otherwise made that placement hostile for the youth, the application of paragraph (f), as
described by ACF, would prohibit a service provider from using RHY grant funds from
providing that youth with safe housing and seemingly even with in-home counseling services to
prevent that youth from fleeing the placement. We do not believe that this result aligns with the
intent of the Act.
To prevent this overly restrictive interpretation of the Act’s restrictions on use of RHY grant
funds, and to further the intent of RHY programs, we propose the following revisions to
paragraph (f) (strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
(f) Grantees shall take steps to ensure that youth who are under the legal jurisdiction of
the juvenile justice or child welfare systems receive services from those systems until
such time as they are released from the jurisdiction of those systems. Where continued
placement of youth under the legal jurisdiction of these systems presents an immediate
concern for the safety of the youth, or where immediate return to the custody of these
systems is not in the best interest of youth, grantees shall take appropriate steps to address
the needs of such youth, in accordance with applicable law.
Paragraph (g)
We strongly support the proposal in paragraph (g) to require grantees to develop and implement
an aftercare plan for youth who leave the program. To further the intent of ACF to ensure the
ongoing safety of youth who leave the program, we recommend a revision to the language of this
paragraph to clarify that in addition to referrals for needed health care services, where necessary,
grantees also provide referrals to health care coverage. As stated in § 1351.10, What is the
purpose of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program grants, runaway, homeless, street youth, or
youth at risk of running away or becoming homeless “lack sufficient resources to obtain care.” In
20
order to ensure the ongoing safety of these youth, it is crucial that they have access to sufficient
resources, such as health care coverage through Medicaid, private health insurance plans, or
other sources. It would be a logical outgrowth of the requirement to provide appropriate referrals
for needed health care services to also require grantees to provide appropriate referrals for health
care coverage, where needed.
To provide additional clarity to grantees regarding their obligations to provide appropriate
referrals, we propose the following (strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates
additions):
(g) Grantees shall develop and implement an aftercare plan, covering at least 6 months, to
stay in contact with youth who leave the program in order to ensure their ongoing safety.
A youth's individual aftercare plan shall outline what services were provided, including
appropriate referrals for needed health care coverage and health care services, the youth's
housing status, and the rate of participation and completion of the services in the plan at 3
months and at 6 months after exiting the program.
Paragraph (j)
We strongly support the proposal in paragraph (j) to require grantees to develop emergency
preparedness plans. We suggest that such emergency preparedness plans also be required to
incorporate preparedness for mental health emergencies, to include the development of suicide
prevention and postvention plans.
Paragraph (k)
We support the requirement established in this paragraph whereby grantees must ensure that
shelters operated by grantees or shelters to which they regularly provide referrals are licensed.
We also reiterate our understanding that, to the extent state agencies or licensing bodies receive
funding from HHS or are regulated by HHS, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 prohibits discrimination in the
policies or practices of these entities with respect to a number of characteristics, including sex
and sexual orientation and gender identity. We believe there may be necessity for guidance for
grantees on the appropriate course of action when State or local legal requirements for licensing
– or interpretation of those requirements – may conflict with the nondiscrimination or other
standards established by ACF through these proposed rules.
Paragraph (m)
We strongly support ACF’s proposal under paragraph (m) to require positive youth development
(PYD) on a program-wide basis. Creating safe and structured environments, facilitating
relationships with role models, providing opportunities for youth to improve educational, social,
and employment skills, and providing healthy messages to adolescents about their bodies,
behaviors, and interpersonal relationship are all valuable in the provision of services that
comprehensively address the needs of youth.
21
In particular, LGBT youth stand to benefit from integration of PYD across RHY grant-funded
programs. Research indicates that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth experience increased rates of
suicidality compared to their heterosexual peers across age groups, gender, race, and ethnicity.21
Likewise, studies suggest an elevated risk for depression and attempted suicide among
transgender youth.22 Multiple studies also suggest that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth may be at
increased risk for certain eating disorders.23 Research on sexual orientation and gender identity
development among LGBT youth also indicates that the process of identity formation and
acceptance is ongoing through childhood and adolescence,24 and prominent medical and mental
health professional organizations stress the importance of affirming and culturally competent
support systems to assist youth in developing social support networks and to minimize
internalized stigma surrounding their identities.25 Thus, incorporating PYD that addresses topics
of body image, personal acceptance, harm reduction, suicide prevention, self-care, and
development of positive support networks – in addition to topics pertaining to interpersonal
relationships, sexual health, and other healthy messages – may benefit LGBT youth who may
otherwise lack access to these safe environments and positive messages.
We encourage ACF to provide additional non-regulatory guidance to grantees on appropriate
messaging and other tools to assist in PYD that includes messages of identity formation and
acceptance and self-determination of sexual orientation and gender identity.
7. Requirements that Basic Center Program grantees must meet (proposed revision to 45
CFR 1351.21)
We strongly support the proposal at paragraphs (a) and (b) and agree that the availability of
intake and safe shelter for youth presenting to BCP grantees is an essential component of
achieving the purposes of the grant program.
We request clarification that “crisis counseling” in paragraph (a) is to be interpreted broadly to
include immediate needs for suicide prevention counseling and treatment, as well as other
immediate mental health crises.
We also support the requirement at paragraph (c), requiring BCP grantees to provide case
management, counselling, and referrals that meet the needs of the youth and that, where
appropriate, encourage involvement of the youth’s parents or legal guardians. We request
clarification that “safety” in this section, is to be interpreted broadly, involving an assessment of
the best interest of the youth with regard not only to their physical and bodily integrity but also
of their emotional and mental health. This is particularly important for LGBT youth, where
involvement of parents and guardians may not present an immediate physical threat but where
21 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research
Gaps and Opportunities. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for
Better Understanding. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. 4, Childhood/Adolescence.
Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64808/ 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.
22
rejection of that youth’s core identity may nonetheless create a hostile environment that is
detrimental to the mental or emotional health of the youth.
We are concerned with the language proposed by ACF at paragraph (e). It appears to be the
intent of ACF to require grantees to contact parents or legal guardians of youth within 72 hours
of entering the program unless it is not in the best interests of youth as determined by using a
best interest standard defined by State child welfare legal requirements pertaining to mandatory
reporting to child protective services or law enforcement. As an initial matter, the proposed
language does not appear to consider circumstances in which a parent or legal guardian is unable
to be located or not otherwise responsive to contact attempts by the grantee.
Additionally, we believe that confining the exception to the parental/guardian notification
requirement to instances where state law would trigger a mandatory report to CPS or law
enforcement may constitute an undue restriction that does not reflect the best interests of the
youth presenting for services. While this standard is not articulated in the text of the rule itself,
but only in the explanatory text of the proposed rule, we believe that confining the case-by-base
assessment of the best interest of a youth to the limitations of mandatory reporting may pose a
risk to some youth, including LGBT youth faced with family rejection.
For example, in New York, mandatory reporting laws are triggered when a mandatory reporter is
“presented with a reasonable cause to suspect child abuse or maltreatment.”26
State law in New York defines child abuse as an instance when a parent or personally
legally responsible for a child’s care inflicts or creates a substantial risk of inflicting
“physical injury to such child by other than accidental means which would be likely
to cause death or serious or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment of
physical or emotional health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily organ.”27
Impairment of emotional health includes a state where a child exhibits diminished control
of self-destructive impulse, but only where such impairment is “clearly attributable to the
unwillingness or inability of the [adult] to exercise a minimum degree of care toward the
child.”28
Child maltreatment (and child neglect) is defined as occurring when “when a parent or
other person legally responsible for the care of a child harms a child, or places a child in
imminent danger of harm by failing to exercise the minimum degree of care in providing
the child with any of the following: food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care
when financially able to do so,” when a child is “abandon[ed]” or not provided with
“adequate supervision,” or when a parent or other legally obligated caretakers engages in
excessive drug or alcohol use that interferes with their ability to adequately supervise a
child.29
26 New York State Office of Children & Family Services, “Summary Guide for Mandated Reporters in New York
State” (February 2014) available at http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/publications/Pub1159.pdf. 27 N.Y. FCT. LAW § 1012(e)(i). 28 N.Y. FCT. LAW § 1012(h). 29 N.Y. FCT. LAW § 1012(f).
23
A child is considered to be “abandoned” when a parent or guardian “evinces an intent to
forego his or her parental rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure to visit
the child and communicate with the child.”30
These state law definitions may not capture instances in which a parent or guardian had
threatened to inflict physical injury upon a child but has not yet done so, has inflicted mental or
emotional harm that may jeopardize the health of a child but that harm cannot be connected to a
failure to provide “minimal care” (which is itself not a clearly defined term), or when a parent
has constructively abandoned a child through the imposition of unlivable conditions. Any one of
these circumstances can be a very real threat to a child facing parental rejection on the basis of
their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, if state law is the only exception to the
mandatory parental contact provision of this rule, an LGBT child in any one of these
circumstances may nonetheless have their parent informed of their location after running away to
escape unlivable conditions, or even after having been thrown out or constructively evicted from
their own home by a parent or legal guardian. Certainly this contact could jeopardize the health
of that child and is not in their “best interest.”
To vest a greater degree of flexibility and professional discretion in grantees determining
whether it is in the best interest of a youth inform their parents or legal guardian or that youth’s
location, we proposed the following revision to the text at paragraph (e) (strikethroughs indicate
deletions and underline indicates additions):
(e) Grantees must attempt to contact the parent(s), legal guardian or other relatives of
each client within 72 hours of the youth entering the program to inform them that the
youth is safe, if such contact does not jeopardize the safety of the youth. The grantee
should shall determine on a case-by-case basis if it is in the best interests of the youth to
notify the parent(s) or legal guardian of the location of the youth until further information
has been gathered to assure safety. Such a determination should include assessment of the
safety of the youth if their parent(s) or legal guardian are informed of their location.
8. Performance standards for Basic Center grantees (proposed 45 CFR 1351.30)
Paragraph (a)
As with paragraph (e) of Section 1351.21, we are concerned with the language at this paragraph
concerning contact with parents or legal guardians of youth entering BCPs. We recommend a
parallel revision to this text to align with our recommended revisions at 1351.21(e)
(strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
(a) Grantees must attempt to contact the parent(s), legal guardian or other relatives of
each client within 72 hours of the youth entering the program to inform them that the
youth is safe, if such contact does not jeopardize the safety of the youth. The grantee
should shall determine on a case-by-case basis if it is in the best interests of the youth to
notify the parent(s) or legal guardian of the location of the youth until further information
30 See N.Y. SOS. LAW § 384-b.
24
has been gathered to assure safety. Such a determination should assess the safety of the
youth if their parent(s) or legal guardian are informed of their location.
Paragraph (b)
We support the principle of providing measurable performance standards for Basic Center
grantees that balance the interests of establishing achievable milestones with ensuring that
services provided by grantees demonstrate meaningful impact and efficacy. We are concerned
that paragraph (b), establishing a standard for grantees of maintaining a 90 percent or higher
proportion of transition to safe and appropriate settings may not be attainable for many grantees
who are nevertheless providing effective and high quality services.
The preamble to this proposed rule states that RHYMIS data indicates that, “on average,”
grantees have achieved a 92 percent success rate in safe exits. We request clarification regarding
this reported success rate and the range of success rates among grantees. As ACF’s has
acknowledged in its report to Congress on RHY Programs for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, “data
collected in RHYMIS does not currently give a complete picture of the outcomes of the Basic
Center Program.”31 Other sources have indicated as recently as 2013 that 74 percent of youth are
discharged into stable housing after entrance into a Basic Center or Transitional Living
Program.32 Because of the range of reported outcomes among previous and current grantees, we
are concerned that the 90 percent standard proposed in these rules may be unattainable for many
otherwise effective grantees.
We request additional information on the data serving as the basis for this standard, and
encourage ACF to consider the range of outcomes data reported through RHYMIS in setting a
standard striking the appropriate balance between high standards and acknowledging the
diversity of experiences among grantees and the youth populations they serve.
9. Performance standards for Transitional Living Programs (proposed 45 CFR 1351.31)
As with the standards proposed in Section 1351.30 for Basic Center Programs, we encourage
ACF to consider the range of outcomes data reported through RHYMIS in setting the standards
in paragraphs (a) and (b) for safe exit and engagement in community service and service learning
activities, respectively. It is crucial that program standards strike the appropriate balance between
high standards and acknowledging the diversity of experiences among grantees and the youth
populations they serve.
31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on
Children, Youth and Families Family and Youth Services Bureau, Report to Congress on the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Programs Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fysb/rhy_congress_2010_11.pdf. 32 National Network for Youth, “Policy Brief: Runaway and Homeless Youth Act” (2013) available at
http://www.nn4youth.org/system/files/NN4Y%27s%20RHYA%20Policy%20Paper%202013.pdf.
25
10. How and when performance standards for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program
will be revised (proposed 45 CFR 1351.33)
We strongly support the proposal in paragraph (a) to relate performance standards to core
outcomes. However, as currently written, we are concerned that the four core outcomes do not
adequately address the health issues faced by runaway, homeless, street youth, or youth at risk of
running away or becoming homeless. To further the goals of ACF in ensuring performance
standards of grantees, we propose revising the language to paragraph (a) to include mental and
physical wellbeing (strikethroughs indicate deletions and underline indicates additions):
(a) Current and future performance standards for grantees will be related to one or more
of the following four core outcomes:
(1) Physical, Mental, Social and Emotional Health and Well-being;
(2) Permanent Connections;
(3) Education or Employment; and/or
(4) Stable Housing.
Conclusion
These regulations are essential to ensure that LGBT youth and organizations that serve them
benefit from the protections and clarifications proposed through this rulemaking. We therefore
urge ACF to move forward with the implementation of these proposed rules in a timely manner.
We look forward to continuing to work with ACF to ensure that all homeless youth, including
LGBT youth, are able to access programs promoting their safety, shelter, and security.