Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A 1 at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

[Excerpt] This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1, at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus

Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues

[Excerpt] The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. These programs are administered by mostly adult volunteers who are recruited by youth serving organizations, faith based organizations, schools, and after school programs. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals, while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long term ability of mentoring to produce particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain. Since the mid 1990s, Congress supported mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at risk youth ages 5 to 20. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. Previously, two mentoring programs the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short lived: the MCP was administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from FY2003 through FY2011 and the SDFS program was administered by the Department of Education (ED) from FY2002 through FY2010. The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short term grants and initiatives, primarily carried out by DOJ. DOJ has allocated funding for multiple initiatives through its Mentoring program, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at risk youth administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive since 2008. This report begins with an overview of the goals of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. While additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services, such programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the quality of mentoring programs, and the potential need for additional mentors

Youth and the Labor Force: Background and Trends

[Excerpt] This report provides current and historical labor force information about young people ages 16 to 24. In general, youth have a lower rate of labor force participation, and those who are in the labor force are less likely to gain employment than older workers. Both labor supply and demand factors drive this pattern. On the labor supply side, young people are making greater investments in education by enrolling in and completing high school and college in greater numbers. They are less likely to be attached to the labor force due to their limited availability (e.g., only able to work full-time during the summer if they attend school) and their relatively weaker connections to employers. Labor demand also plays a role. Youth are less desirable in some ways than adult workers because they are less experienced; have fewer skills and education; and are potentially short-term hires, which can be costly to employers. The report focuses on trends from 2000 to 2018. This period has included two recessions (March to November 2001 and December 2007 to June 2009) and a decline in jobs requiring only a high school diploma. Many workers were still struggling to find work in the years immediately following the more recent recession. The recession exacerbated challenges that workers have faced in securing and retaining employment since 2000. Against this backdrop, young people ages 16 to 24 experienced their steepest decreases in labor force participation and employment; however, in recent years employment levels have steadily been recovering. Some studies have found that early labor market experiences and outcomes have lasting impacts on employability and wages. Given the current and future challenges that young people can experience in the labor market, this report may be of interest to Congress in the contexts of workforce development, education, unemployment insurance, youth policy, or macroeconomic policy; however, the report does not discuss specific programs or policy implications. The report begins with a brief discussion of current employment and education pathways that young people can pursue. Following this is a description of the labor market data used in the report, which includes the labor force participation rate, employment-population ratio, and unemployment rate.2 The report then discusses these data for the post-World War II period, with a focus on trends since 2000, comparing labor force outcomes based on age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The report concludes by exploring the factors that influence the extent to which youth participate in the labor force and their prospects for employment. The last section also discusses the potential short- and long-term effects of young people’s labor market experiences. The Appendix includes supplemental tables and figures on youth employment trends

Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues

[Excerpt] Since the mid-1990s, Congress has supported legislation to establish structured mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at-risk youth ages 5 to 20. The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—have provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short- lived: funding for the MCP program, carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since FY2003, was discontinued as of FY2011; and funding for the SDFS program, carried out by the Department of Education (ED) since FY2002, was discontinued as of FY2010. The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short-term grants and initiatives. Many of these grants are carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has allocated funding for multiple mentoring programs, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of Defense, helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive in recent years but federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Justice, are collaborating to reconvene the council. This report begins with an overview of the purpose of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. Note that additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services. These programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the potential need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in sustaining funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding. The Appendix includes a description of two federal mentoring programs that were funded until FY2010 and FY2011

Domestic Human Trafficking Legislation in the 113th Congress

[Excerpt] This report examines the trafficking-related provisions in legislation that has at least been reported out of committee in the 113th Congress. Where applicable, it discusses companion legislation that may not have been considered in committee or other legislation that has received significant Congressional interest. The legislation includes the following: • The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Title XII of P.L. 113-4) enacted on March 7, 2013. This act was part of the larger The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. • The E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act (P.L. 113-38), enacted on September 30, 2013. • The Fraudulent Overseas Recruitment and Trafficking Elimination Act (H.R. 3344).14 • The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2013 (H.R. 3530), placed on the House calendar on May 15, 2014. The companion legislation (S. 1738) has not been taken up in committee. • The Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act of 2013 (H.R. 3610), placed on the House calendar on May 13, 2014. The companion legislation (S. 1733) has not been taken up in committee. • The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Improving Opportunities for Youth in Foster Care Act (H.R. 4058), as ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on April 29, 2014.15 • The SAVE Act of 2014 (H.R. 4225), placed on the House calendar on May 15, 2014. • International Megan’s Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking (H.R. 4573), as ordered reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on May 9, 2014. • The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), as passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013. • The Supporting At-Risk Children Act (S. 1870), as ordered reported by the Senate Finance Committee on December 12, 2013.16 The following sections lay out issues raised in the bills. The issues are grouped under the following themes: (1) restoring victims through services and benefits, (2) unaccompanied minor trafficking victims, (3) protection of foreign national workers, (4) criminal justice, (5) improving data, (6) domestic sex trafficking of children, and (7) other issues that include inter-agency coordination and sex offender registry and notification

Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress

[Excerpt] This report provides an overview of sex trafficking of children in the United States. It first conceptualizes the issue, discussing the victims and perpetrators involved. It then outlines the federal response to investigating and prosecuting perpetrators as well as providing services to victims. The report concludes with a discussion of select issues concerning the federal response to sex trafficking of minors in the United States

Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs

[Excerpt] This report provides an overview of federal employment programs for vulnerable young people. It begins with a discussion of the current challenges in preparing all youth today for the workforce. The report then provides a chronology of job training and employment programs for at-risk youth that began in the 1930s and were expanded or modified from the 1960s through the 1990s. It goes on to discuss the four youth programs authorized under WIOA, and draws comparisons between these programs. Following this section is a detailed discussion of each of the programs

Influence of anisotropic ion shape, asymmetric valency, and electrolyte concentration on structural and thermodynamic properties of an electric double layer

Grand canonical Monte Carlo simulation results are reported for an electric double layer modelled by a planar charged hard wall, anisotropic shape cations, and spherical anions at different electrolyte concentrations and asymmetric valencies. The cations consist of two tangentially tethered hard spheres of the same diameter, $d$. One sphere is charged while the other is neutral. Spherical anions are charged hard spheres of diameter $d$. The ion valency asymmetry 1:2 and 2:1 is considered, with the ions being immersed in a solvent mimicked by a continuum dielectric medium at standard temperature. The simulations are carried out for the following electrolyte concentrations: 0.1, 1.0 and 2.0 M. Profiles of the electrode-ion, electrode-neutral sphere singlet distributions, the average orientation of dimers, and the mean electrostatic potential are calculated for a given electrode surface charge, $\sigma$, while the contact electrode potential and the differential capacitance are presented for varying electrode charge. With an increasing electrolyte concentration, the shape of differential capacitance curve changes from that with a minimum surrounded by maxima into that of a distorted single maximum. For a 2:1 electrolyte, the maximum is located at a small negative $\sigma$ value while for 1:2, at a small positive value.Comment: 10 pages, 6 figure