Death by deadline: Trump's HHS is making it impossible to protect homeless youth
On July 9, the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released three of its long-awaited grant applications for the core programs under the federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Act: Transitional Living Programs, Maternity Group Homes and Basic Center Programs. These programs support thousands of youth annually through emergency shelter, transitional housing and supportive services for youth, young adults and young parents.
But this year's grant cycle is not just business as usual. Providers have been given just 14 days — instead of the standard 60 — to apply. That's a 77 percent reduction in time for one of the most complex and essential federal grant programs serving young people.
This deadline isn't just unreasonable — it puts hundreds of youth-serving programs at risk of losing their funding.
Organizations are dropping everything to scramble through a needlessly rushed application process with no advance notice, no technical assistance, and no accommodations for the new and extremely demanding requirements. Many organizations' grants are set to expire on Sept. 30. For many, losing their funding means losing their programs. If this happens, tens of thousands of youth could lose access to life-saving support.
'This compressed timeline is devastating,' Catherine Hummel, executive director of DreamTree Project in Taos, N.M., tells me. 'Like many nonprofits, our personnel are responsible for operations along with writing grants, which means that essential operations will suffer while focusing on this application. We are unsure if we will be able to submit a complete application on time.'
The new grant applications include many complicated changes to previous years' grant awards, not the least of which is the elimination of the Street Outreach Program as a standalone grant. This program was the only federal program solely focused on preventing the sexual exploitation, trafficking and abuse of runaway and homeless youth. It funded trained outreach workers who met youth where they are — in parking lots, gas stations, parks and drop-in centers — to build trust and connect them to safety. At least one in five youths experiencing homelessness are also trafficked for sex, labor or both, making the targeted work of street outreach both compassionate and life-saving.
Outreach is a specialized, relationship-based service. Not every provider has the capacity, infrastructure or partnerships to deliver it effectively. But under the new grant applications, street outreach activities must be integrated into transitional living programs and maternity group homes.
This structural change, dropped with no guidance or forewarning, is a massive shift in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act's framework and of the Family and Youth Services Bureau's interpretation of the statute. It imposes heavy new administrative burdens on transitional living or maternity group home providers who don't already conduct outreach (which is many), including hiring dedicated, full-time outreach staff; preparing and implementing protocol for street outreach; and producing new Memoranda of Understanding with law enforcement agencies and outside, age-appropriate shelters.
Remember, providers have just 14 days to deliver all of this.
The new law enforcement memoranda requirement for applicants is especially troubling. These agreements aren't simple, one-page forms — they require relationship-building, intense collaboration, data-sharing terms, joint training plans, and confidentiality protections that must comply with federal law (34 USC §11275). Acquiring the necessary memoranda typically takes months — not only to plan and draft them, but also to have them reviewed by legal professionals. Rushing this process introduces serious compliance risks.
The administration has also introduced an inappropriate and ideologically-driven requirement into grant applications: All programs must provide education, including to minors, emphasizing the merits of marriage for long-term economic success and well-being. This misguided requirement diverts time and resources away from the core services of housing, education, employment and health and raises legitimate concerns about government overreach.
All of these changes fly in the face of the bipartisan support that the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act has enjoyed since its enactment in 1974. Just last month, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb,.) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) introduced legislation to reauthorize the act and preserve the Street Outreach Program as a standalone grant. Congress understands what this administration seems to have forgotten: good youth services take time, partnership and care — not rushed bureaucracy and ideology.
Let's be clear: These changes are not about efficiency or accountability. They reflect a harmful and deliberate choice that disregards the realities of frontline work and the experiences youth face every day. Our young people experiencing homelessness deserve better than rushed timelines, ideological mandates and impossible expectations. And the people who serve them deserve the time, clarity and respect to do their jobs well.
The stakes are too high to allow this process to go unchecked.
Darla Bardine is executive director of the National Network for Youth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22-07-2025
- The Hill
Trump's pharmaceutical tariffs will dig America deeper into medical debt
President Trump recently announced his intent to impose a 200 percent tariff on pharmaceuticals to lure drug manufacturing back to the U.S. This action, if implemented, will come at great cost to millions of Americans already struggling to cover their medical bills and force them deeper into health care debt. A vast number of Americans today rely on prescription medications. Over 60 percent of adults have at least one prescription filled every year. These statistics rise dramatically as we grow older. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found an estimated nine out of 10 people over the age of 65 rely on these drugs to maintain their long-term health. Many adults admit to not taking their medications due to fears over cost. Almost half of adults age 50 and older 'have either skipped filling a prescription due to costs or know someone who has,' according to research by the American Association of Retired Persons. U.S. prescription drug prices are almost three times higher than those of other countries. The U.S. 'pays higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country in the world,' notes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In part, that's because some of the most widely used drugs in America are imported from other countries. Pharmaceutical imports have more than doubled in recent decades, rising from $65 billion in 2006 to $151 billion in 2019. They include many popular drugs that treat diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer, blood clots, schizophrenia and obesity, among others. The long-term goal of boosting U.S. drug manufacturing to make America less reliant on pharmaceutical production from other countries, lower drug costs and increase medication access is an important endeavor. But the policies we enact to try and achieve this desired outcome must be weighed carefully to avoid creating short-term price spikes and drug shortages that could hurt millions of people. Trump initially said his tariff proposal wouldn't go into effect for another year. He has since changed this view by indicating the U.S. may 'start off' with a lower tariff as early as Aug. 1, and raise it to a 'very high tariff' in a 'year or so.' But experts have issued warnings about the possible impact these tariffs will have on public health, saying even a year isn't enough time for the U.S. drug industry to build the required infrastructure necessary to meet U.S. supply demands. 'That would be potentially disastrous for every person because we need those pharmaceuticals, and it takes those companies a long time to produce them here in the U.S.,' said Afsaneh Beschloss of RockCreek Group in response to Trump's proposed tariff plan. UBS analysts noted Trump's initial proposal to delay enforcement of a 200 percent tariff by 12 months still provides ' insufficient time ' for drug companies to relocate manufacturing operations to the U.S.. A four-to-five-year horizon is more realistic, they say. What's more, research commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry lobby group PhRMA found that a mere 25 percent tariff would increase U.S. drug prices by almost $51 billion. Trump's tariff proposals will hurt those dependent on generic medications especially hard. That's because nearly 80 percent of generic capsules and tablets Americans consume come from outside the U.S. Analysis by Brookings found that, given the low margins on generic prescriptions, tariff pressure could result in the discontinuation of certain drugs that, for many, are their only affordable option. As of last year, Americans owed at least $220 billion in collective medical debt. Fourteen million owed over $1,000. Three million owed over $10,000. Americans cannot absorb billions in added drug price hikes as a result of ill-designed and poorly timed tariff increases. It will place undue economic burden on those who can least afford it by creating drug shortages and impacting access to critical therapies people need to lead long, healthy lives. Trump's policies will be shouldered most by the elderly, the disabled and the marginalized — communities that require access to reasonably-priced prescription drugs. It took decades for U.S. pharmaceutical production to move overseas; moving it back to America can't happen overnight. We need measured policy approaches, not knee-jerk ones, to prevent America's most vulnerable from digging themselves further in debt to pay for medications many already can't afford.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Yahoo
Democratic AGs sue to bar immigration requirements for Head Start and other federal programs
By Diana Novak Jones CHICAGO (Reuters) -More than 20 Democratic attorneys general on Monday sued to block a Trump administration policy that bars migrants living in the U.S. illegally from accessing federally-funded programs for low-income families that provide early childhood education, food and healthcare, saying it could force the programs to shutter altogether. The attorneys general from states, including New York, California and Illinois, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, asking the court to block policies announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice and several other agencies outlined in memos released earlier this month. They argue the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Republican President Donald Trump are unconstitutional and were issued without following the required federal rulemaking process. The directives require programs to check participants' immigration status before providing services, or risk losing critical federal funding, the lawsuit said. The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, it said. Immigrants in the country illegally have generally been ineligible for most federal benefits, but until the memos were issued, some programs providing healthcare, food and early childcare education were not treated as restricted federal benefits. Additionally, the policy also applies to some people who are in the country legally, like those with student visas, and could harm U.S. citizens without government identification, they said. New York Attorney General Letitia James said her state's Head Start program receives approximately $700 million in federal funding to provide early childhood education to nearly 43,000 children. Many providers in the program have said they may not have the capacity to screen participants' immigration status, putting the funding at risk. 'This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for HHS said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. In a statement earlier this month, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr said his agency was making the change to disincentivize illegal immigration. The lawsuit asks the court to halt the policy and vacate it. The agencies announced the policy beginning on July 10, saying it was part of their effort to follow a February Trump executive order. The executive order, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' said a 1996 federal law governing federal benefits prevented their use by people in the country illegally. The attorneys general said the Trump administration has misinterpreted the law, applying it to entire programs rather than to individual benefits. The policy also violates the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause, which requires the federal government to provide fair notice of any conditions on federal funding before states accept it, the group said.
Chicago Tribune
16-07-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other Trump officials embrace psychedelics after FDA setback
WASHINGTON — For decades, proponents of psychedelic drugs have come to Washington with a provocative message: Illegal, mind-altering substances like LSD and ecstasy should be approved for Americans grappling with depression, trauma and other hard-to-treat conditions. A presidential administration finally seems to agree. 'This line of therapeutics has tremendous advantage if given in a clinical setting and we are working very hard to make sure that happens within 12 months,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told members of Congress. His suggested timeline for green-lighting psychedelic therapy surprised even the most bullish supporters of the drugs. And it comes as psychedelics are making inroads in deep red states like Texas, where former Trump cabinet secretary and ex-governor Rick Perry has thrown his full support behind the effort. The administration's embrace of psychedelics has sparked both excitement as well as concern from those in the field, who worry the drugs might be discredited if they appear to be rushed onto the market or are too closely linked with Kennedy, who is known for controversial views on vaccines, antidepressants and fluoride. 'I'm quite optimistic,' says Rick Doblin, whose organization has pursued the medical use of MDMA (or ecstasy) since the 1980s. 'But I'm also worried that the message the public might get is 'Well, RFK likes psychedelics and now it's approved.'' Under President Joe Biden, the FDA rejected MDMA as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, citing flawed data and questionable research. Regulators called for a new study, likely taking several years. It was a major setback for Doblin and other advocates hoping to see the first U.S. approval of a psychedelic for medical use. But the agency appears ready to reconsider. FDA chief Marty Makary, who reports to Kennedy, has called the evaluation of MDMA and other psychedelics 'a top priority,' announcing a slate of initiatives that could be used to accelerate their approval. One new program promises to expedite drugs that serve 'the health interests of Americans,' by slashing their review time from six months or more to as little as one month. Makary has also suggested greater flexibility on requirements for certain drugs, potentially waiving rigorous controlled studies that compare patients to a placebo group. That approach, considered essential for high-quality research, has long been a stumbling point for psychedelic studies, in which patients can almost always correctly guess whether they've received the drug or a dummy pill. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and FDA also recently hired several new staffers with ties to the psychedelic movement. 'These are all very promising signs that the administration is aware of the potential of psychedelics and is trying to make overtures that they're ready to approve them,' said Greg Ferenstein, a fellow at the libertarian Reason Foundation, who also consults for psychedelic companies. 'We didn't hear anything about that in the Biden administration' A spokesperson for HHS did not respond to a request for comment. As a presidential candidate, Kennedy discussed how his son and several close friends benefited from using psychedelics to deal with grief and other issues. A number of veterans lobbying for psychedelic access have already met with Trump's Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins. 'What we're seeing so far is positive,' Collins told House lawmakers in May. But some experts worry the hope and hype surrounding psychedelics has gotten ahead of the science. Philip Corlett, a psychiatric researcher at Yale University, says bypassing rigorous clinical trials could set back the field and jeopardize patients. 'If RFK and the new administration are serious about this work, there are things they could do to shepherd it into reality by meeting the benchmarks of medical science,' Corlett said. 'I just don't think that's going to happen.' As officials in Washington weigh the future of psychedelics, some states are moving ahead with their own projects in hopes of nudging the federal government. Oregon and Colorado have legalized psychedelic therapy. And last month, Texas approved $50 million to study ibogaine, a potent psychedelic made from a shrub that's native to West Africa, as a treatment for opioid addiction, PTSD and other conditions. The research grant — the largest of its kind by any government — passed with support from the state's former GOP governor, Perry, and combat veterans, some who have traveled to clinics in Mexico that offer ibogaine. Ibogaine is on the U.S. government's ultra-restrictive list of illegal, Schedule 1 drugs, which also includes heroin. So advocates in Texas are hoping to build a national movement to ease restrictions on researching its use. 'Governmental systems move slowly and inefficiently,' said Bryan Hubbard of Americans for Ibogaine, a group formed with Perry. 'Sometimes you find yourself constrained in terms of the progress you can make from within.' Ibogaine is unique among psychedelics in both its purported benefits and risks. Small studies and anecdotal reports suggest the drug may be able to dramatically ease addiction and trauma. It was sold for medical use in France for several decades starting in the 1930s, but the drug can also cause dangerous irregular heart rhythms, which can be fatal if left untreated. Some veterans who have taken the drug say the risks can be managed and ibogaine's healing properties go far beyond antidepressants, mood stabilizers, counseling and other standard treatments. Marcus Capone struggled with anger, insomnia and mood swings after 13 years as a Navy Seal. In 2017, at the urging of his wife Amber, he agreed to try ibogaine as a last resort. He described his first ibogaine session as 'a complete purge of everything.' 'But afterward I felt the weight just completely off my shoulders,' he said. 'No more anxiety, no more depression, life made sense all of a sudden.' A nonprofit founded by the Capones, Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, has helped over 1,000 veterans travel abroad to receive ibogaine and other psychedelics. But federal scientists have looked at the drug before — three decades ago, when the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded preliminary studies on using it as an addiction treatment. The research was discontinued after it identified 'cardiovascular toxicity.' 'It would be dead in the water,' in terms of winning FDA approval, longtime NIDA director Nora Volkow said. But Volkow said her agency remains interested in psychedelics, including ibogaine, and is funding an American drugmaker that's working to develop a safer, synthetic version of the drug. 'I am very intrigued by their pharmacological properties and how they are influencing the brain,' Volkow said. 'But you also have to be very mindful not to fall into the hype and to be objective and rigorous in evaluating them.'
