The Foster Youth Mentoring Act of 2025 adds a new section (439A) to Title IV of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary to award grants to establish or expand networks of public and private community entities that provide mentoring to children in foster care and those with experience in foster care. The statute defines eligible applicants, requires program design and oversight elements, authorizes the Secretary to scale grant awards to applicant capacity, and requires annual reporting and evaluation.
Why it matters: the bill creates a dedicated, federally led funding stream and a set of baseline program requirements for mentoring services targeted to foster-involved youth — including provisions that elevate peer mentoring and explicit training and screening standards. That combination will drive how mentoring programs serving foster youth are designed, funded, and measured, and will create new compliance and reporting obligations for grantees and federal administrators.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires applicants to describe program design, targeted outcomes, capacity to serve specific populations, and plans to recruit, train, and screen mentors. Grants may be used to recruit and compensate mentors (including peer mentors), pay mentee participation costs, and provide ongoing mentor support. The Secretary must evaluate programs and issue an annual report to Congress.
Who It Affects
Nonprofit mentoring organizations, State child welfare agencies, local educational agencies, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, faith-based groups, and other community partners that operate foster-care mentoring programs. It also affects mentors (including peer mentors), foster youth up to age 26, and the federal agency staff who will manage grantmaking and oversight.
Why It Matters
The bill sets federal expectations for trauma-informed training, criminal-background screening, culturally responsive recruitment, and youth engagement that could become sectorwide standards. It also elevates compensation for mentors and the role of peers with lived experience, while creating new reporting and evaluation requirements that will shape future funding and best practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute introduces two key definitional points that shape eligibility and reach. First, it distinguishes between “children in foster care” (those currently removed from parental custody by a State or tribal child welfare agency) and “children with experience in foster care,” a category that covers people under age 26 who have at any point been removed from parental custody.
Second, it lists the types of organizations eligible to apply: nonprofits, State child welfare agencies, local educational agencies, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, and faith-based organizations.
The grant application is application-centric: applicants must present a program design describing targeted outcomes, mentee eligibility and ages, mentor types (adult or peer), settings, duration and meeting frequency, and the number of mentor-child matches to be established and maintained annually. Applications must also show capacity to serve priority and historically underserved populations, and document how young people with foster experience informed program design.
Recruitment plans must realistically portray program participation and intentionally seek mentors who reflect the race, ethnicity, and identities of the youth served.The bill prescribes operational safeguards. All mentors must receive intensive, ongoing training that covers child and adolescent development, family dynamics and trauma, education rights (including post-secondary issues), transition-to-adulthood supports, cultural competence, positive youth development, mandated reporting, confidentiality, and coordination with child welfare systems.
Screening requirements include a written screening plan and criminal background checks; the statute requires excluding mentors with convictions for crimes against children and with more-recent convictions when those convictions relate directly to child safety. Grantees must show how they will ensure mentor availability for sustained, long-term relationships.Community engagement and coordination are built into program design: applicants must consult and actively engage youth with foster experience, family members, public and private community entities (including tribal organizations and religious groups), and demonstrate how the mentoring program will coordinate with other federal, State, and local systems — notably corrections, workforce development, education, and behavioral health providers.
Grant funds may be used for mentor recruitment and training, compensating mentors (including peer mentors), covering mentee participation costs, and activities that support youth development. The Secretary is directed to scale grant awards to applicants’ budgets and capacity, to require recordkeeping and cooperation with oversight audits and evaluations, and to produce an annual report to Congress describing program reach, mentor demographics and tenure, participant outcomes, and waiting-list data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute defines “children with experience in foster care” to include anyone under 26 who was at any time removed from parental custody by a State or tribal child welfare agency.
Mentoring, as defined by the bill, must be a structured, managed program designed to last at least one year and can take the form of one-on-one, group, or peer mentoring.
Grant applications must include explicit recruitment strategies to attract mentors who reflect the race, ethnicity, and identities of the youth served and must document youth input into program design.
Required mentor training topics are extensive and include child and adolescent development, trauma and family dynamics, education rights, transition-to-adulthood supports, cultural competence, positive youth development, mandatory reporting, and confidentiality.
The statute requires criminal background checks and directs grantees to exclude mentors convicted of crimes against children and mentors with more-recent convictions that are directly related to child safety.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose: Federal grant authority for mentoring networks
This subsection states the program goal: authorize the Secretary to award grants to eligible entities to establish or expand networks of public and private community entities providing mentoring to foster-involved youth. Practically, it creates a discrete federal grant authority aimed at scaling mentoring capacity rather than modifying existing child-welfare entitlement formulas.
Definitions that set program boundaries
The bill defines the covered populations and eligible entities. Importantly, the age-based definition of 'children with experience in foster care' (under 26) expands the population beyond minors and creates eligibility for transition-aged youth. The eligible-entity list (nonprofits, state child-welfare agencies, LEAs, tribes, faith-based orgs) frames the applicant pool and signals the program's intent to fund a mix of public, nonprofit, and faith-based delivery partners.
Grant program and application requirements
The Secretary must award grants to eligible entities, and applications must present a detailed program design (targeted outcomes, mentee eligibility, mentor type, duration, meeting frequency, and proposed number of matches). Applicants must also commit to recruitment plans, intensive and ongoing mentor training, written screening plans with criminal-background checks, and methods to ensure mentor willingness and capacity for long-term engagement.
Community engagement, coordination, and equal access
Applicants must demonstrate consultation with youth with foster experience, family members, public and private community entities (including tribes and faith-based organizations), and coordinate with federal, state, and local programs (corrections, workforce, education, behavioral health). The statute also includes an equal-access assurance so public and private local providers, including religious organizations and Indian organizations, can participate on an equal basis — a provision that affects program partnerships and subgrantee selection.
Permitted uses of funds and grant scaling
Grantees may use funds for mentor training and ongoing support, mentor recruitment and compensation (explicitly including peer mentors), mentee participation costs, and youth-development activities. The Secretary must scale awards to account for an applicant’s annual budget and capacity, which allows flexibility in award size but introduces a discretionary component that will affect small, high-need providers differently than large organizations.
Reporting, evaluation, and appropriations
Grantees must maintain records, cooperate with audits and an ongoing evaluation, and the Secretary must provide Congress an annual report that covers program counts, mentor demographics and tenure, participant academic outcomes, waiting lists, and other relevant evaluation metrics. The statute also contains an authorization of appropriations for initial fiscal years and open-ended language for subsequent funding.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and youth with foster experience (up to age 26): will gain access to structured, long-term mentoring designed to support academic, social, and transition-to-adulthood outcomes, with programs required to reflect input from youth themselves.
- Peer mentors and alumni of foster care: the bill explicitly funds and validates peer mentoring, creating paid or compensated roles for individuals with lived experience and opening employment and leadership pathways.
- Community-based organizations and faith-based groups: eligible to apply and participate on an equal basis, these organizations can receive federal support to expand mentoring services and formalize partnerships with public agencies.
- Local educational agencies and schools: will benefit from closer coordination with mentoring programs that include education-rights training and supports that can improve attendance and academic outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Eligible grantees (nonprofits, state agencies, LEAs, tribes): they must design compliant applications, implement rigorous training and screening, conduct recordkeeping and reporting, and absorb administrative costs that may not be fully covered by grant awards.
- Federal agency staff (the Secretary’s office and program managers): will face new responsibilities for competitive grant administration, oversight, scaling decisions, evaluation contracts, and annual reporting to Congress.
- Mentors and prospective mentors: will need to complete intensive and ongoing training and undergo criminal background checks; these requirements could raise time and participation costs for volunteers.
- Small local providers and emerging peer-led groups: may struggle with the capacity and administrative burden required by application and reporting requirements, potentially necessitating partnerships or subcontracting arrangements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between protecting and professionalizing mentoring services for a vulnerable population (through rigorous screening, training, reporting, and compensation) and preserving the flexibility and community-based capacity needed to recruit enough mentors — including peers with lived experience — without imposing administrative burdens that favor large organizations over local grassroots providers.
The bill balances an intent to professionalize and standardize mentoring for foster-involved youth with practical trade-offs that will matter in implementation. The combination of intensive training, written screening plans, criminal-background checks, and requirements to demonstrate youth engagement creates a higher bar for grantees — a bar that improves safety and program quality but will increase administrative costs and may favor larger organizations with existing grant infrastructure.
The directive to compensate mentors, including peer mentors, is meaningful for sustainability and equity but raises questions about job classification, consistent pay practices, and whether grant awards will cover ongoing personnel costs.
The statute leaves several operational questions unresolved. It uses the generic term “Secretary” without specifying implementation details (e.g., whether administration will sit with an HHS sub-agency that has deep ties to child welfare).
The requirement to exclude mentors with convictions related to child safety and with convictions in the past 10 years is protective but could shrink the available mentor pool, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system. Finally, the authorization language provides initial funding but creates uncertainty about long-term sustainability: establishing programs that rely on federal grants in early years will require a plan for continuing services if appropriations lapse or remain limited.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.