Runaway and Homeless Youth Act: Policy Analysis and Reauthorization
This paper examines the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (PL 110-378), tracing its origins in the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and its subsequent amendments. It analyzes the proposed reauthorization — the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act — which sought $165 million in federal funding to sustain shelter, outreach, and transitional living programs for youth under age 23 who are homeless or have run away. The paper discusses the Act's goals, values, and financial effects; identifies key political stakeholders; and situates the legislation within a social justice framework. It also addresses the political impasse created by the inclusion of LGBT youth protections in Senator Leahy's reauthorization amendment, which led Republicans to reject the proposal, threatening funding for thousands of vulnerable young people.
- Introduction: Overview of the Act and reauthorization debate
- Proposed Legislation and Program Components: Legislative history and three core program components
- Goals, Values, and Financial Effects: Program goals, implied values, and federal funding request
- Who Is Affected: Demographics, statistics, and at-risk youth populations
- Key Players and Political Dynamics: Leahy's sponsorship and Republican opposition to LGBT clause
- Social Justice Dimensions: Equity, inclusion, and rights framework for homeless youth
- Conclusion: Stakes of reauthorization failure and call for support
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Provides a clear legislative history, linking the 2008 Act back to its 1974 origins and tracing amendments through 2016, giving the reader useful context for evaluating the reauthorization debate.
- Integrates concrete statistics — such as the 1.68 million homeless or runaway youth and the 5,000 youths turned away from Transitional Living Programs in 2014 — to ground policy arguments in measurable need.
- Balances descriptive policy analysis with a normative social justice argument, clearly distinguishing program mechanics from the values underlying the legislation.
- Includes a reflective "Questions for Further Thought" section that acknowledges political trade-offs honestly, demonstrating critical engagement rather than pure advocacy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs policy analysis as its core method: it identifies the legislation's goals and values, evaluates its financial effects, maps key stakeholders, and situates the proposal within a broader social justice framework. This structured approach — moving from legislative history to program components to political dynamics — is a strong model for undergraduate policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction establishing the Act's scope and the reauthorization debate, then proceeds through legislative background, program goals, financial implications, affected populations, key political actors, and social justice framing before concluding with a policy recommendation. A brief reflective section raises a pragmatic counterargument about the LGBT provisions, adding analytical nuance. The conclusion synthesizes the stakes and reaffirms the case for reauthorization.
Introduction
The Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act — also known as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (PL 110-378) — is federal legislation passed in 2008 that authorized the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, described as "the largest targeted federal program that provides assistance to youth under age 23 who are homeless or have run away" (p. 1). In 2015, the legislation was introduced into the Senate for reauthorization. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act is the present form of the Act, and it seeks to modify the Basic Center Grant Program — a service providing short-term emergency shelter and family reunification to runaway and/or homeless youth. This paper discusses the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and argues that it is a policy supporting social justice for young persons facing homelessness, and that reauthorization should be granted.
Proposed Legislation and Program Components
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was passed in 2008 and was established by the Runaway Youth Act as Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA; P.L. 93-415). Since that time it has been amended on several occasions, and millions of dollars in allocated funds have been reauthorized for several fiscal years. In recent years, it was further amended by the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act (RHYA, 2014). Today, the program has three core components: the Basic Center Program (BCP), which provides short-term assistance to youths including up to 30 days of shelter; the Transitional Living Program (TLP), which provides housing; and the Street Outreach Program (SOP), which assists young persons living on the streets (S.262 — 114th Congress, 2016).
Goals, Values, and Financial Effects
The goals of the reauthorization of this Act are to provide assistance to runaway and/or homeless youths through a variety of programs that address issues faced by runaways, homeless young persons, victims of sexual abuse, and LGBT youths living on the streets. The values expressed in this legislation are rooted in the need to identify and care for all young persons who leave home to escape an abusive environment or who have no home due to other circumstances. As the 2014 introduction to the legislation's renewal noted, such youths "often endure far more negative outcomes than their romanticized counterparts from an earlier era" (p. 1). The Act further states that "without adequate and safe shelter, runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to engaging in high-risk behaviors and further victimization" (p. 1). Supporters of prior reauthorization bills also urged that the law focus on helping gay and transgender youths, noting that "gay and transgender youth are more likely to be homeless than other youth" (Dunn & Krehely, 2012, p. 1).
In short, the values associated with the Act are rooted in a societal need to assist young persons who struggle with a variety of circumstances that may be outside their control. No values are explicitly stated in the Act itself; the ones noted above are generally implied and inferred. What is clear is that the Act is designed to help young persons who face issues associated with homelessness.
The current amendment of the Act is with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The reauthorization is requesting $165 million in funding and is sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat representing Vermont. There are currently 33 cosponsors — 2 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 30 Democrats (Cosponsors: S.262 — 114th Congress, 2016).
The financial effects of this bill include substantial funding for youth shelters, street outreach, and family reunification assistance. The sum requested is significant but not overwhelming for the federal government, and it should present no serious fiscal obstacle. The effects of funding are most concretely seen in the implementation of the TLP, which provides safe accommodations, basic life skills training, educational opportunities, mental health care, physical health care, and job services (Federal Programs, 2015). Because the federal government is the source of these funds, taxpayers ultimately bear the cost — but the investment serves both humanitarian and community-safety interests.
The reauthorization proposal will impact young persons who need assistance of all kinds — from basic necessities such as food and shelter to GED preparation, job placement support, and healthcare. As the proposed reauthorization legislation makes clear, young persons are particularly vulnerable to risks including sexual exploitation, drug abuse, neglect, depression, alcoholism, and physical abuse. By addressing the needs of youths who find themselves in helpless situations, communities as a whole can be better served and protected.
Conclusion
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 2008 is seeking reauthorization for fiscal year 2016 — however, Senator Leahy's proposal was tabled because Republicans opposed the inclusion of LGBT protections in his amendment. As a result, funding for programs supported by the Act is threatened, and thousands more homeless youths may be turned away. The importance of this Act lies in its capacity to provide shelter, counseling, education, and assistance to some of the most vulnerable young people in the country. It deserves support from all members of Congress. Without that support, youths living on the streets and in desperate need of aid will continue to be left behind.
References
Cosponsors: S.262 — 114th Congress. (2016). Congress.gov. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/262/cosponsors
Dunn, M., & Krehely, J. (2012). Runaway and Homeless Youth Act should include gay and transgender youth. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/lgbt_rhya.pdf
Federal Programs. (2015). Youth.gov. Retrieved from http://youth.gov/youth-topics/runaway-and-homeless-youth/federal-programs
Leahy, P. (2015a). Ending homelessness among youth. Leahy.senate.gov. Retrieved from https://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/ending-homelessness-among-youth-and-victims-of-domestic-violence
Leahy, P. (2015b). Ranking member. Leahy.senate.gov. Retrieved from https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/ranking-member-senate-judiciary-committee-on-senate-republicans-vote-against-legislation-to-protect-runaway-and-homeless-youth-
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2016). FY 2016 appropriations. Retrieved from
RHYA. (2014). Digital Library. Retrieved from https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491622/m1/1/high_res_d/R43766_2014Oct23.pdf
S.262 — 114th Congress. (2016). To reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Congress.gov. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/262/text
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.