Everything You Need to Know About the RHYA NOFOs

In July, the long-awaited Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) were released.

• Basic Center Program
  • Applications close August 17.
  • Short-term crisis housing and services for minors experiencing homelessness.
• Street Outreach Program
  • Applications close August 17.
  • Outreach and drop-in centers for youth experiencing homelessness and human trafficking or sexual exploitation.
• Primary Prevention Demonstration Program
  • Applications close August 31 (extended from August 17).
  • Strategies to identify and prevent homelessness for youth up to age 26.
• National Communication System
  • Applications close August 19.
  • Hotline for youth experiencing homelessness and their families, available as call, text, chat, or online.
• Runaway Homeless Youth Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity Building Center
  • Applications close August 14.
  • Training and technical assistance for RHYA grantees.

Many of the NOFOs’ new provisions attempt to force providers to abandon evidence-based practices that help young people feel safe and respected, or risk losing funding. The NOFOs also attempt to discourage providers from acknowledging young people’s diverse identities and require conformity with highly-politicized priorities. These requirements could undermine the trusting relationships that are essential to helping young people exit homelessness.

NN4Y rejects this approach. Services should be guided by evidence, professional expertise, and the needs of young people, not by political ideology. Every young person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and providers should be free to create environments where all young people feel safe, welcome, and supported.

There are several new provisions to be aware of that appear in the Basic Center Program (BCP), Street Outreach Program (SOP), and Prevention Demonstration Program (PDP) NOFOs.

The three NOFOs include a new section, Human Trafficking of Children and Youth. This section describes preferred practices across trafficking prevention, screening, services, education, and outreach. It also shares a number of resources.

This section is included under Project requirements for BCP and SOP, meaning discussion of the applicant’s anti-trafficking work is required for BCP and SOP narratives. The trafficking section appears under Program Description for PDP and further references to trafficking are throughout the NOFO. Preventing trafficking and identifying and serving youth who have experienced trafficking seems to be one of the preferred focuses for PDP (see, for example, Overview [page 12], Service provision requirements [page 13], or Primary prevention [page 14]).

Under each NOFO’s Funding policies and limitations sections, there is a provision restricting NOFO funds from being used for:

• Research related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI/A).
• Discriminatory activities or activities that show preference based on protected traits.
• Activities that promote a “discriminatory equity ideology.”
• Services or activities that “inculcate or promote gender ideology.”

This provision is softened with protective language: “To the extent permitted by law, including any relevant court orders.” There have already been multiple court orders finding that requiring grantees to comply with anti-DEI/A and gender ideology conditions is likely illegal:

• King County v. Turner
• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Kennedy

Note that the findings of these cases may technically apply only to the involved plaintiffs. However, the Federal agencies being challenged in these cases have, thus far, taken the approach that it isn’t practicable to limit the effect of these court orders to just those plaintiffs. Furthermore, any concessions made by the agencies as part of litigation (such as the fact that the Executive Orders do not apply to grantees) may also apply to applicants and grantees in other NOFOs, especially when the existence of previous court orders is clearly acknowledged by the agency in the language of the NOFO.

In addition to this, RHYA’s regulation has strong protections and requirements for programs to deliver gender- and diversity-appropriate services:

45 CFR 1351.22: Service delivery and staff training must comprehensively address the individual strengths and needs of youth as well as be language appropriate, gender appropriate (interventions that are sensitive to the diverse experiences of male, female, and transgender youth and consistent with the gender identity of participating youth)…

Regulations supersede NOFO conditions or grant terms.

Throughout the three NOFOs are references to the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Vision, Mission, Values, Priorities, & Guiding Principles.

Applicants must submit a signed attestation committing to “supporting and advancing” ACF’s Vision, “consistent with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and Administration priorities.” Similar “loyalty tests” are currently being challenged in court (see American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Kupor). No temporary hold or final ruling has been made yet.

Applicants must show how their proposed project and approach aligns with specific pieces of ACF’s Vision, including through design, implementation, partnerships, personnel, performance measures, and evaluation. The NOFOs call out specifics under each of their Required alignment with ACF vision, mission, values, priorities, and guiding principles sections (BCP pages 9-10; SOP pages 9-10; PDP pages 10-11). Additionally, the Promoting Work and Self-Sufficiency priority is individually called out multiple times throughout each NOFO, suggesting that applicants should include connections to this priority in their application.

While applicants should still discuss and attest to ACF’s Vision as is required by the NOFO, requiring grantees to show alignment with ACF’s Vision may have similar legal problems as requiring grantees to comply with Executive Orders (ie, there is little legal authority to make this requirement). In other words, punishing an applicant or grantee by not awarding or rescinding funding solely based on perceived misalignment with ACF’s Vision could be unsuccessful if challenged in court.

The three NOFOs include a provision under Selection Process that attempts to allow for political review of applications. A similar provision is currently being challenged in court (State of New Jersey v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget), the outcome of which would likely apply to this provision. Legally, grant criteria must be made clear upfront, detailed in the NOFO, and can’t contradict statute or appropriations language. As such, allowing for politically-motived reviews without sharing in advance the review criteria would likely be unsuccessful if challenged in court.

BCP funds short-term crisis housing and services for minors experiencing homelessness. The following are major provisions that are new and unique to the BCP NOFO.

A known issue for RHYA providers is the “20-bed issue,” which disallows providers from having more than 20 beds in one building, even if the building houses completely separate programs. Under the BCP NOFO’s Shelter capacity requirements section (page 12), there is a new line that addresses this issue (highlighted):

If your facility is located within a single floor of an apartment building…it is the floor of the structure where you provide services that must have a minimum residential capacity of four individuals and a maximum residential capacity of 20 individuals. The entire building may have a larger capacity of up to 20 youth per floor.​

BCP applicants must submit a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or formal agreement with a local law enforcement agency to:

• Identify high-concentration areas.
• Establish protocols for coordinated outreach.
• Create referral mechanisms.
• Develop joint training opportunities.
• Outline data sharing agreements.
• See pages 14 and 46-47.

The requirement is almost identical to what was required of Transitional Living Program (TLP) and Maternity Group Home (MGH) applicants last year. Here is an example of a MOU from an application last year that was successful in receiving a RHYA award.

RHYA was created to be an alternative to justice involvement for youth, and that remains in statute today. Even the NOFO upholds this statutory requirement by continuing to disallow juvenile justice entities from applying for BCP. Additionally, RHYA’s statute is very clear that data sharing is highly restricted across all programs (see 34 USC §11275), with further protections for BCP participants (see 34 USC §11212 (b)(7)).

In other words, although applicants will have to submit an agreement with their local law enforcement agency in order to be considered for funding, applicants are still required to follow RHYA law to protect youth from over-involvement or inappropriate data sharing with law enforcement.

Under the BCP NOFO’s Program-specific limitations and policies section (page 26), applicants must include a statement that verifies they will not support or facilitate the following activities:

• Activities related to substance use, such as needle exchange or testing kits.
• Abortions.
• “Any treatment or referral to treatment that aims to change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

It is unclear whether this attestation applies to entire programs or just activities funded by the BCP grant, but to pass legal muster, it could only apply to BCP-funded activities. In order to be enforceable, it would also have to be found to be constitutional and not in violation of RHYA statute or the Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, it would also need to allow for certain exceptions, such as if state law allows the program to administer harm-reduction activities.

SOP funds outreach and drop-in centers for youth experiencing homelessness and human trafficking or sexual exploitation. The following are major provisions that are new and unique to the SOP NOFO.

Last year’s BCP, TLP, and MGH NOFOs included street outreach activities as optional or required. A standalone SOP NOFO was not released. As such, many providers are operating street outreach activities from their other RHYA programs.

If an applicant was awarded a BCP, TLP, or MGH with street outreach activities last year, they are still eligible to apply for a standalone SOP this year as long as:

• The SOP covers a different geographic area, and/or
• The SOP serves a different youth population (such as a different age group).

SOP applicants must also submit a MOU or formal agreement with a local law enforcement agency. See the BCP section above for more information.

PDP funds strategies to identify and prevent homelessness for youth up to age 26. The following are major provisions that are new and unique to the PDP NOFO.

NN4Y previously reported that non-profit organizations would not be eligible for PDP this year, based on the information that was on the forecasted PDP listing page. However, the NOFO indicates the following entities are eligible to apply:

• State agencies, Tribes, counties, cities, other units of local government.
• Community-based organizations, nonprofit and for-profit.
• Eligibility for for-profit organizations is new.
• Current PDP grantees are eligible to apply.

The project period for this year’s PDPs has changed from previous years. This year, awards will fund one 24-month (two-year) project period with one budget period and no non-competing continuations (NCC). In previous years, PDPs were awarded for three 12-month budget periods with NCCs in between.

Under the PDP NOFO’s Program-specific limitations and policies section (page 21), applicants must include a statement that verifies their programs will not support or facilitate any harm-reduction activities. (Note that this statement differs from the required BCP statement under this section, and that SOP does not have a required statement under this section.) Similarly to the required BCP statement under this section, there could be enforcement issues around the vagueness of this provision, whether it applies to entire programs or just PDP-funded activities, and if it is in conflict with state laws, other federal laws, or regulations.

There is an additional provision under PDP’s Program-specific limitations and policies that does not appear in BCP or SOP which states that funding cannot be used for “Any activities or services that do not align with the published ACF published priorities unless authorized.” The same enforcement issues identified above also apply here.

The NOFO states that PDP grantees and subgrantees are “encouraged” to use the national E-Verify system to ensure that their employees are eligible to work in the United States. However, an “encouragement” is not legally binding. As such, providers could choose to continue using whatever employment verification processes they already do.