Collaborations of Schools and 

Social Service Agencies

Author

Jan Moore, Assistant Program Specialist

National Center for Homeless Education 

December 2005 

Interagency collaboration is 

rarer than we think, 

harder than we think, 

and 

more promising than we think. 

(Adkins, Awsumb, Noblit, & Richards, 1999) 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 

Findings........................................................................................................................ 7 

Requirements for successful collaboration.......................................................... 7 

Barriers to collaboration........................................................................................10 

Promising Practices ................................................................................................11 

Perspectives and the St. Louis Park, MN School District...................................... 13 

Homeless Student Project Task Force of Lancaster, PA ........................................ 14 

Children and Homelessness Collaborative – Glendale, CA ................................... 16 

Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County (FL)................................................... 18 

Project HOPE of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (NC)............................ 20 

Broward County Schools (FL).................................................................................. 22 

HEART Program, Spokane (WA) Public Schools.................................................... 24 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................. 27 

San Antonio (TX) ISD Transitions Program........................................................... 28 

Overall Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 30 

Bibliography..............................................................................................................33 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 1 
Acknowledgements 

NCHE would like to thank the following individuals for their willingness to share 

information about their collaborations and recognize them as examples of the many 

who expend incalculable hours and energy serving homeless children and their 

families. 

Estella Garza, San Antonio (TX) ISD Transitions Program 

Joanne Conger Huber, Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County, 

Jerrilyn Johnson, Project HOPE of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County (NC) Schools 

Ken Marzinko, Homeless Student Project Task Force of Lancaster, PA 

Susan Mee, Lois Rhea, and Janice Routon, Tennessee 

Susan Myers, Perspectives and the St. Louis Park (MN) School District 

Carol Reynolds, Children and Homelessness Collaborative – Glendale, CA 

Dianne Sepielli, Broward County (FL) Schools 

Edie Sims, HEART Program, Spokane (WA) Public Schools

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 2 
NCHE Profile 

The National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE) is a national resource center 

of research and information enabling communities to successfully address the needs 

of children and their families who are experiencing homelessness and 

unaccompanied youth in homeless situations. Funded by the U.S. Department of 

Education, NCHE provides services to improve educational opportunities and 

outcomes for homeless children and youth in our nation’s school communities. 

NCHE is housed at SERVE, a consortium of education organizations associated 

with the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. 

The goals of NCHE are the following: 

• Disseminate important resource and referral information related to the 

complex issues surrounding the education of children and youth experiencing 

homelessness. 

• Provide rapid-response referral information 

• Foster collaboration among various organizations with interests in 

addressing the needs of children and youth experiencing homelessness 

• Synthesize and apply existing research and guide the research agenda to 

expand the knowledge base on the education of homeless children and 

families, and unaccompanied youth

Website: www.serve.org/nche

HelpLine: 800-308-2145 

Contact: Diana Bowman, Director 

NCHE at SERVE 

P.O. Box 5367 

Greensboro, NC 27435 

Phone: 336-315-7453 or 800-755-3277 

Email: dbowman@serve.org or homeless@serve.org 

The content of this publication does not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Education, nor does 

mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 3
Executive Summary 

In the past two decades, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of homeless 

students enrolled in US schools. Overwhelmed school personnel lack adequate 

resources and skills to successfully address the myriad of challenges – especially 

those outside the scope of academics – faced by homeless children. Issues like 

hunger, inadequate housing, poor health care, emotional difficulties, domestic 

violence, and family substance abuse among others have prompted educators to look 

increasingly toward collaborations with social service agencies as a possible 

solution. 

A review of the literature reveals that little effort has been expended in identifying 

successful collaborative efforts and the few programs that have been identified have 

received so little attention that they have not been replicated by others initiating 

their own collaborative efforts. Educators and social service agencies receptive to 

beginning a collaborative effort would greatly benefit from an opportunity to study 

other programs and practices before embarking their own. 

This report explores collaborative efforts of schools and social service agencies 

working with homeless children and families. The project’s goals were to identify 

frequently encountered barriers and successful strategies to overcome them. This 

included examining specific programs and practices that could be adapted 

effectively for use in similar settings by school-level educators, local homeless 

liaisons, state homeless coordinators, social service workers, and other personnel 

who work in any capacity with homeless students. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 4
Introduction 

Over the past two decades there has been a dramatic rise in the number of homeless 

students enrolled in American schools. (Tucker, 1999). From 1997 to 2000, the 

overall population of pre K-12 children increased only 2 percent, but the number of 

homeless pre K-12 children and youth increased 10 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2000). Although it is difficult to identify those who do not want to be 

identified, estimates are that between 900,000 and 1.4 million children are 

homeless with their families (Burt, 2001) and children are one of the fastest 

growing segments of the homeless population (Durham, 2004; National Coalition for 

the Homeless, 2001). 

The instability and chaotic nature of homelessness can have profound effects on a 

child’s physical health, psychological development, and academic achievement. 

Physically, there are much higher rates of acute and chronic health problems, 

hunger and poor nutrition, and developmental delays (Thompson, 1998; Duffield, 

Heybach, and Julianelle, 2002). Psychological symptoms include depression, 

anxiety, conduct disorders (MacLean, Embry, & Cauce, 1999; Thompson, Pollio, 

Constantine, Reid, & Nebbitt, 2002) and post-traumatic stress (Cauce, Paradise, 

Ginzler, Embry, Morgan, Lohr, et al., 2000). Achieving their educational potential 

is difficult for homeless children as they are twice as likely to repeat a grade or be 

suspended from school, and many attend three or more different schools in a year 

(Better Homes Fund, 1999). Of the one third that missed more than 10 school days, 

a fourth missed a month or more (Holloway, 2002/2003). 

The problems associated with homelessness are so multidimensional, that 

researchers and practitioners overwhelmingly agree that no single agency has the 

ability to address all the issues faced by homeless students and their families 

(Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Stronge, 1997; Stronge & Reed-Victor, 2000; 

Tourse & Mooney, 1999). Successful efforts to address the issues can only stem from 

a broad, comprehensive approach based on the collaborative efforts of educators and 

various service providers working together (Bruner 1992; Hightower, Nathanson, & 

Wimberly, 1997; Tourse & Mooney, 1999; Tucker, 1999). 

Descriptions of collaborations range from phone calls between acquaintances in 

different agencies to very organized and regulated cross-agency task forces (Noblit, 

1999). Collaborators, defined as those working together and sharing responsibilities 

to achieve common goals must understand the interdependent relationships among 

students, families, and service providers (Lawson & Barkdull, 2000). Collaborating 

is not the goal but the means to accomplish the goal (Noblit, Richards, & Adkins, 

1999). Understanding this important concept helps to place the focus on the 

children and families instead of the collaborative process. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 5
In 2002, Stronge and Reed-Victor reported there was an abundance of potential and 

promising collaborative partners, but few organizations had actually begun 

implementing their collaboration efforts. That same year, the most recent 

reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100-77) not 

only required that states and schools be more responsible for getting homeless 

children into school and keeping better track of their academic performance, it also 

mandated that state coordinators and local liaisons for homeless education 

collaborate with other agencies to serve homeless students. It is clear that social, 

emotional, and physical issues are barriers to student success and must be 

addressed if schools are to meet their mandated goals (Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 

1997; Taylor & Adelman, 1996). Therefore, a vast array of start-up collaborations 

involving schools and social service agencies has sprung up in the last few years.

Schools were not intended to address the multitude of economic, educational, and 

personal obstacles faced by homeless children. As Lawson and Briar-Lawson (1997) 

state, “Our schools were designed to help children learn, not to substitute for a 

healthy family and a supportive neighborhood community” (p. 8). Nevertheless, 

since schools are a “universal institution” (National Center for Children in Poverty, 

1992, p. 23) and possibly the only stable influence in the life of a homeless child, 

school staff may be the most logical ones to spearhead collaborative efforts. Many 

communities are now focusing on schools as the basis for collaborations simply 

because that is where the children are. 

Even though schools do not necessarily need to organize the collaborative services, 

the facility or administration’s cooperation is essential to the success of the effort. 

Melaville and Blank (1993) advise that the following be considered when trying to 

determine whether to base collaborative services in a school: 

 Level of parental trust of and relationship with the school 

 Immediate access to services during school hours 

 Relationships among school and agency staff members 

 Amount of available space 

 Accessibility for parents and children 

 Facility regulations 

If there are situations where parents do not feel connected to the neighborhood 

schools, e.g., due to school district busing mandates, school consolidation, etc., 

services should be located where it is most convenient for the families to access 

them (Adkins, A., Awsumb, C., Noblit, G., Richards, P., 1999). For any of the 

previously mentioned reasons or for a myriad of others, the school may not be the 

best site. Whatever location is chosen must be convenient and comfortable for those 

who will utilize the services. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 6
Findings 

Children and youth in homeless situations encounter challenges at school, within 

the family, and in the community. They often need to access services provided by 

several different systems, each with its own requirements, policies, procedures, and 

goals. In addition, each of these systems typically focuses on one set of needs (Long, 

2004). The diversity of focus and professional knowledge among many systems can 

lead to radically different views of the youth and the services needed. For example, 

a child welfare social worker might focus on issues related to a child’s safety, a 

school counselor could be more concerned with addressing behaviors at school, and a 

mental health professional would see a troubled youth in need of mental health 

services. Meanwhile, none of them considers how to improve overall outcomes for a 

child involved with multiple agencies (Dunkle & Nash, 1989; Luongo, 2000). So 

without agency collaboration, a youth may bounce haphazardly among agencies 

that provide services which may be duplicated or possibly even contradictory. The 

challenge for collaboratives is to provide more effective, comprehensive services 

thereby increasing the efficiency of all the agencies involved. 

Plainly, serving children and youth in homeless situations is a community issue, not 

just a school or social service provider issue. Those who understand this have begun 

to form successful collaborative networks to provide comprehensive assistance in 

meeting the multiple needs of these children and their families. However, despite 

the general consensus that collaboratives hold great promise (Rafferty, 1997; 

Stronge, 1995; Sullivan & Sugarman, 1996), few efforts have been aimed at 

identifying the successful ones. Howell (2004) concludes that despite the 

conglomeration of uncoordinated initiatives, programs, and perspectives that 

pervades the youth services field, the few programs that have been identified have 

received so little attention that they have not been replicated in other locations. 

Educators and others, receptive to beginning a collaborative effort, would greatly 

benefit from opportunities to examine a variety of programs and practices before 

embarking on their own. Unfortunately, far more research is needed to determine 

how successfully collaborative services are provided and what impact they have on 

homeless children and youth.

Requirements for successful collaboration 

Interagency collaboration has been described as rarer than we think, harder than 

we think, and more promising than we think (Adkins, Awsumb, Noblit, & Richards, 

1999). While collaborating is becoming more popular, it still requires hard work. 

But that work often pays off in an initial victory toward short-term goals which 

then acts as a catalyst toward pursuing more difficult and long-term tasks.

Some basic requirements for successful collaboration include agreeing on a common 

goal, assessing needs and resources, identifying priorities based on those needs, and 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 7
developing a mutually agreed upon strategic plan (Stronge & Reed-Victor, 2000). An 

important first step is identifying the common thread that can weave participants 

together. Without a strong unifying goal and a clear, solid plan to achieve it, the 

collaboration will struggle to survive. But, building a broad community-based 

collaboration around a narrow focus will greatly increase the chances of success. If 

everyone is committed to the collective mission, the group is far more likely to 

survive the inevitable obstacles without falling apart. 

Suggestions for starting a collaboration: 

 Don’t shortcut the planning process 

 Conduct a needs assessment 

 Base relationships on common goals, trust, and respect 

 Learn all you can about the other agencies involved 

 Establish a clear, concise mission, vision, and goals 

 Encourage passionate leaders 

 Develop plans to share information, resources, and 

authority 

 Set a pattern of frequent and unambiguous 

communication 

 Have clear expectations of agency representatives and 

volunteers 

 Encourage creativity and allow risk-taking 

The right people must be at the table, flexible in searching for solutions, willing to 

understand the other agencies involved, and committed to do “whatever it takes” 

(Doerre & Mihaly, 1996, p. 42) to meet families’ needs. When it’s time to invite 

others to participate, some think it’s best to invite more versus less people because 

it’s difficult to get buy-in after the collaboration’s begun. They advise to be sure and 

include those from the population you want to serve. Involving homeless parents 

empowers them to take more responsibility in problem solving. Diverse participants 

generate new perspectives and creative solutions. On the other hand, a multitude of 

service providers do not necessarily guarantee better results. Caseworkers expected 

to consider a greater number of referral alternatives may feel even more burdened 

and choose to work only with a small group thereby hindering collaboration. 

Key players must learn to work together and trust each other enough to be able to 

share information, resources, and decision-making authority. Successful 

collaborators should plan to spend as much time nurturing relationships as 

planning and implementing projects. Developing relationships, facilitating 

coordination among members, building creative partnerships, and uniting around 

common goals could win the support of unlikely allies (Action Alliance for Children, 

n.d.) and create new service possibilities that would be impossible for individual 

agencies. This will surely improve schools, strengthen families and neighborhoods, 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 8
and lead to “a marked reduction in young people’s problems” (Center for Mental 

Health in Schools at UCLA, 2004, p. 97). 

No agency or organization can be truly effective if everyone works in isolation, but 

those asked to collaborate must feel they have a lot to gain by working together and 

that their efforts will be effective. True collaboration involves more than just 

meeting and talking; it must include adequate training, support, and authority and 

produce effective programs and services. Members grow more committed when they 

know their voices will be heard and their opinions valued. Without member buy-in, 

collaborative work will come to a standstill (Adelman & Taylor, 1998). 

Communication is an ongoing challenge that must be addressed across every level 

of the participating agencies. Everyone must hear the same message and 

understand what it means to the group as a whole, not just their own agency. They 

must have regular contact (Hightower, Nathanson, and Wimberly, 1997) including 

specific discussions about a child’s life both within and outside of the school (Adkins, 

et al., 1999) all the while practicing patience and perseverance (Awsumb, 1999). 

Many problems occur because of semantics, so if something is said that doesn’t 

sound right, members must take the initiative to ask for clarification 

Some believe that perceptions are the predominant factor that most often affect the 

success or failure of a collaboration. Perceptions include how agencies view one 

another, what each thinks is the right way to do things, and what each believes 

about the importance of serving clients well. Perceptions can be changed through 

cross-agency experience and open dialogue about collaboration. Only a group of 

people that values and encourages good communication, creativity, and risk-taking 

can foster an environment conducive to successful collaboration (Noblit, Richards, & 

Adkins, 1999). 

Since many educational and social service agencies may choose to work together on 

a state level, the following are some specific recommendations for those state-level 

collaborations (Noblit, Richards, & Adkins 1999): 

 Review policies and be clear about the priority of the collaborative effort 

 Educate and train staff 

 Revise goals based on client needs 

 Create and cultivate relationships with community agencies 

 Share successes with communities across the state to create continuous 

learning opportunities 

 Ask local groups to identify areas where state policies conflict with or create 

barriers to implementing local policies 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 9
Barriers to collaboration 

Former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders explained collaboration as “an unnatural 

act between non-consenting adults. We all say we want to collaborate, but what we 

really mean is that we want to continue doing things as we have always done them 

while others change to fit what we are doing" (Human Interaction Research 

Institute, 2004). The most common explanations that educators and social service 

providers offer for not attempting to work collaboratively center around the 

inflexible bureaucratic structure of their institutions or as Dr. Elders put it 

“continuing to do things as we have always done them” (id). 

Unfortunately, the needs of homeless children are so pressing that those who work 

in this arena often do not have the time or energy to establish collaborations. It is 

simpler to respond with resources that are convenient although inadequate than 

spend the time and effort required to work with another bureaucracy (Stronge & 

Reed-Victor, 2000). Staff members from schools, school districts, and community 

agencies are hesitant to collaborate with those outside their own walls due to 

“administrative burdens and turf questions” (Verstegen, 1996, p. 285). They have 

different foci that have caused past difficulty in working relationships and few 

mechanisms exist to support successful collaboration between the two systems 

(Altshuler, 2003). 

Educators often prefer to deal with problems inside the school walls instead of 

referring students to other professionals. This practice coupled with their lack of 

time for meetings and a failure to effectively communicate leads other service 

providers, students, and parents to view schools as closed systems (Noblit, Richards, 

Adkins, Awsumb, 1999). Despite these obstacles, Adelman and Taylor (1997) say 

the ultimate plan should be total service integration involving the blended 

resources and shared governance of schools and social service entities, but they 

admit this is a long-term goal. 

Collaboration Killers

 We’ve always done it that way 

 I’m just doing my job 

 Leave me alone and let me do my job 

 I don’t trust them 

 They’re too difficult/inflexible/bureaucratic to 

work with 

 I don’t have time to talk with you about this case 

 What’s in it for me? 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 10 
Because of the many systemic conflicts between schools and other agencies, current 

collaboration is primarily focused only on increasing communication, cooperation, 

and coordination along with reallocating or relocating resources. For true 

integration of school and community resources to occur, federal, state, and local 

entities must redefine their policies as well as their focus and scope of operation. 

For example, sharing information in compliance with privacy laws is often a 

challenge. One collaborative group created Parent Release Forms to specifically 

address how information on each issue could be shared and with whom. In another 

city, a judge issued an order that gave local agencies the authority to share 

pertinent information. One situation to consider is the role of teachers after the 

child has been referred to an outside agency. Many agencies have little contact with 

teachers although teachers may know the child’s situation better than anyone else. 

It is clear that successfully overcoming barriers through school-community 

collaborative efforts will require fundamental systemic reforms in both schools and 

communities (Taylor & Adelman, 2000). 

Promising Practices 

NCHE staff gathered information through interviews with educators and social 

service providers involved in collaborative efforts to provide education and other 

services to homeless children and their families. Most of these groups work in 

systems filled with service gaps and overlaps, bureaucratic obstacles, and ingrained, 

narrow-focused cultures. Despite these conditions, many positive outcomes were 

noted including: 

• More effective processes 

• More comprehensive services with fewer gaps and duplications in service 

provision 

• Decreased isolation and competition among service providers 

• Increased awareness and understanding of the needs of homeless students 

and their families among partners and in the community 

• New opportunities that allowed families to have more stability and 

independence 

The following is a description of each collaboration with some successful strategies 

and overall lessons learned. We conclude with a summary of the common findings 

that could guide others in effectively implementing collaborative efforts to serve 

homeless students and families.

The school districts involved in the study, all of which have McKinney-Vento 

subgrants, range in size from 4,200 to 103,000 students with between 75 and 1,094 

students in each district identified as living in homeless situations. Regardless of 

the size of the district, each one collaborates with a large number of local 

organizations including non-profit, faith-based, public, and private agencies. These 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 11
include shelters, churches, housing authorities, homeless councils, city/county social 

service agencies, YMCA/YWCA, Goodwill, Salvation Army, law enforcement, and 

many others. 

The collaborations were formally initiated between two and 16 years ago with all 

but one having an official memorandum of understanding. Even the collaboration 

that has been in effect for only two years is part of a larger group that has been 

meeting together for many years. Frequency of formal meetings is fairly evenly split 

with some held monthly and some quarterly. In addition to the formal meetings, 

members who work together closely communicate far more often, many on a daily 

basis, but most at least several times a week by phone or e-mail. A majority of the 

agencies share some portion of their funding. 

Awsumb & McCadden (1999) reported a major breakthrough for one steering 

committee when it refocused on results instead of process. That change made the 

interdependency of the collaborating agencies quite clear and helped them realize 

that successful collaborative results could not be achieved with each agency viewing 

itself as working in a vacuum. They finally began to understand that their new 

focus would have to be on addressing the overall problem rather than on utilizing 

each agency’s particular program. 

As collaborators begin concentrating on results over processes, they may find it 

useful to ask overarching questions like “What would best prepare youth to become 

satisfied and productive members of the community?” or “What will it take to make 

students lives most fulfilling and successful?” Without collaboration, each agency 

provides the services it was designed to provide. Agreeing to focus collaborative 

effort on providing services that are in the child’s best interest rather than on what 

a particular agency is designed to provide is a necessary basis for any effective 

collaboration. While it is important to have common goals, agencies should also 

remain flexible in the process used to achieve those goals. 

There’s no doubt that successful collaboration is difficult to accomplish. It requires 

not only pre-planning but constant monitoring as the collaborative matures. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be no one size fits all pattern of collaboration. A 

collaborative group must examine each member’s organizational capabilities to 

determine the overall goal. They must also be flexible and creative enough to choose 

the right bits and pieces from other collaboratives to emulate and fuse them in the 

right combination to create their own opportunity for success. What leads to a very 

successful collaborative effort in one situation may not be at all useful in a different 

situation. Ideas, suggestions, and processes gleaned from other sources should be 

viewed not as a recipe for the perfect collaboration but to spark discussions centered 

on each group’s own circumstances. The great challenge is to create a system of 

collaboration around their unique combination of skills that can serve homeless 

children in a way that meets their specific needs and moves their families toward 

self-sufficiency. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 12
Perspectives and the St. Louis Park, MN School District 

Perspectives, a St. Louis Park, MN non-profit agency, has served at-risk and 

homeless children since 1991. It offers an after-school program with academic, 

social, and nutritional components and a supportive housing program that 

accommodates 60 of the 75 students designated as homeless by the school district. 

Seven years ago, Perspectives’ staff, recognizing the importance of education and 

desiring to provide educational assistance to homeless students, approached the St. 

Louis Park School District and proposed a collaborative effort. The two entities 

jointly wrote a proposal for a McKinney-Vento subgrant, and then invited public, 

private, non-profit, and faith-based social service agencies to partner with them. 

Those involved in health, housing, transportation, community education, the Parks 

& Recreation Department, and the Police Department were asked to join the 

collaboration effort by helping with a variety of needs. Within the school district, 

the Title I Coordinator and the Homeless Liaison were key participants along with 

principals, teachers, and adjunct staff. 

The McKinney-Vento subgrant was awarded to the school district. Super Target 

provides financial support and General Mills supplies financial and volunteer 

support. The county social service agency provides funding but is not involved in the 

collaboration. Over the years, several collaborators have lost funding, so partners 

have had to enlist community support to provide resources or volunteers to replace 

paid staff. A paid volunteer coordinator now recruits interns and volunteers. 

According to liaison, Susan Myers, Perspectives staff members arrange and host 

formal meetings with subgroups that are scheduled either weekly or bi-weekly. 

Typical meetings include a short review of past actions but are more focused on 

developing plans for future action. Each participant is expected to contribute by 

identifying gaps in service areas, discussing which needs to address, and proposing 

possible next steps. The entire group rarely has an opportunity to meet together 

and collaborators would prefer having more meetings to get everyone at the table. 

In lieu of that, each Perspectives staff person is assigned an agency they are 

responsible to keep in the communication loop, i.e., one staff member works with 

Second Harvest, one with schools, one with transportation, etc. 

Sharing information in compliance with privacy laws was a particular challenge. 

Everyone had to learn who could share what information (immunizations, 

attendance reports, individual education plans, conversations with teachers and 

staff, etc.). Parent Release Forms were created to specifically address how 

information on each issue could be shared. 

The group has learned that collaboration is a necessity. They have found that 

although it is challenging to keep everyone on the same page, it is the best way to 

serve the children and the only way to provide all the resources necessary to meet 

the variety of needs presented by homeless children and their families. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 13
Homeless Student Project Task Force of Lancaster, PA 

Ken Marzinko had bachelor’s degree in secondary education but didn’t want to 

teach, so he worked with the Children and Youth Agency (county child welfare) in 

Lancaster, PA. While pursuing his MSW degree, he wrote a paper on teen suicide 

and was introduced to the School District of Lancaster’s Homeless Student Project 

(HSP), which had been operating for about three years. Intrigued with the 

organization, he asked to be notified when a social worker position came open there. 

A couple months later, he got the call, applied for, and accepted the school social 

worker position. Ken has chaired the HSP’s task force the last 13 years. Currently, 

the HSP office that houses Ken and Becky Ortega Lita is in an elementary school 

with a 90% free and reduced lunch population and across the street from a large 

shelter with a health clinic where students can get their immunizations. 

When the Pennsylvania State Department of Education began awarding subgrants, 

they encouraged districts to develop local community task forces. The school district 

initiated the efforts and invited agencies and shelters they already worked with to 

join a more formal group. There are currently 40 people on their mailing list and 20-

25 of those attend the quarterly meetings. The HSP concentrates on working in 

community to accomplish creative problem solving, i.e., meeting with several 

agencies to discuss ways to help a 16 year old with no parental or a community 

support so he can remain in school. 

As new social service agencies are created, they are invited to participate in the 

collaboration and encouraged to send new staff members – especially those who are 

unfamiliar with local resources – to task force meetings. The task force is 

responsible for planning meetings and setting the agenda with member input 

solicited for the next meeting’s agenda. Also, members are given the opportunity to 

host a meeting in their agency. There is a waiting list of agencies desiring to host a 

meeting. 

Sharing lunch always precedes the meeting and encourages informal conversation, 

which helps the task force meet one of its goals of familiarizing new people with 

local agencies and giving them opportunities to network. The task force is made up 

of agencies with very different responsibilities and members value the opportunity 

to get to know each other. All are expected to come, learn, and offer their expertise 

in problem solving. There is no competition; instead there’s a true willingness to 

share resources to help homeless families. After the meeting, the host agency 

provides a tour of the facility explaining the services they offer and answering 

members’ questions. Members are highly encouraged to develop relationships with 

those in collaborating agencies. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 14
Shelters refer students directly to the HSP staff instead of the district’s central 

enrollment office. School personnel know to call HSP because of working with them 

on prior cases or because of how they’re listed in the district directory. Although the 

primary mission of HSG is to serve the educational needs of children, they also try 

to provide comprehensive services through referrals to other agencies. Therefore, 

they must know where to refer families to access other services such as housing, 

employment, etc. Agency members help each other out in special situations. For 

example, Ken recently called a shelter to try and place a homeless youth, but the 

shelter manager informed him she had no more beds. He offered to find a bed if she 

would squeeze it in the shelter. She agreed, so one more youth was taken off the 

street and provided a clean, safe place to stay. 

Lancaster has lots of church, business, and community support in the form of cash 

and materials. Homeless children get funds for uniforms, bus passes, field trips, 

school pictures, etc. This has been going on for many years so there is a nest egg, 

which allows them to order items in bulk. Money is never given directly to families, 

but the agencies work with each other to provide needed items. For example, if a 

shelter discovers a student needs uniforms, the shelter will call HSP whose staff 

will then send the uniforms to the shelter or the school so they can dispense directly 

to the student. 

Dental care, mental health, and housing are the biggest obstacles to providing 

comprehensive services although progress has been made by challenging the 

community agencies to work together to address these issues. It isn’t the 

responsibility of the task force or any single agency to solve these problems, but the 

whole task force works together to find solutions. The collaborators have found that 

working together makes each person’s job easier and every task force member gets 

something out of it. According to Marzinko, “No one person or agency working in 

isolation has the resources or expertise to deal with the complex problems we face. 

So, to better serve families we must all know how to connect with other agencies. “ 

 The collaboration has gotten positive reports not only locally but also from state 

and national officials and politicians. Ken is frequently invited to talk about the 

task force to LEA representatives all over the state. Congressman Pitts and Senator 

Sturla regularly receive information gathered at task force meetings by their local 

representatives. Senator Sturla has also attended task force meetings, as have 

Pennsylvania State Coordinator of Homeless Education, Sheldon Winnick, and each 

of his supervisors all the way up to the state’s Secretary of Education. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 15
Children and Homelessness Collaborative – Glendale, CA 

As Carol Reynolds, the district liaison in the Glendale Unified School District in 

southern California, began implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act, she realized 

she needed a greater understanding of how other agencies operate and what issues 

they had with the school district. She also wanted an opportunity to form 

relationships that would make everyone’s work easier. In order to accomplish this, 

the school district hosted a meeting of local agencies serving the homeless. The idea 

of forming a collaboration was discussed and agreed upon. Thus, the Children and 

Homeless Collaborative was implemented in August 2003 with the goal of enabling 

different agencies within the city to work together in serving homeless individuals 

and families. The collaborative, part of the Glendale Homeless Coalition which has 

been meeting for many years, includes Project ACHIEVE, Glendale YMCA and 

YWCA, Salvation Army, City of Glendale, Glendale Police Department, the 

Glendale Council PTA and individual PTA units, and departments within the school 

district who support homeless students. 

Initially, members who have face-to-face contact with homeless families met 

monthly, but now meetings are held quarterly or more often if a specific need arises. 

The district convenes the meetings and acts as recorder. In between scheduled 

meetings, members communicate frequently by email. There is no memorandum of 

understanding so the agencies have no formal roles or responsibilities, nor do they 

share funding. 

From both the school and shelter perspective, the primary barriers to collaboration 

pertained to student enrollment issues. To overcome these barriers, collaborative 

policy development was undertaken. In one situation, some school staff lacked 

enthusiasm when greeting new students from the shelter. To address this, a 

meeting was held for the shelter staff to get acquainted with the principals and 

enrollment staff of schools in the shelter district. Everyone had an opportunity to 

openly discuss any relevant issues that affected their shelter or school site. As a 

result of the dialogue, shelter staff agreed to call ahead and let the staff designee 

know when a new student was going to enroll. That allowed the designee to plan for 

the extra time it would take to complete the enrollment process. The group 

continues to develop awareness programs for district staff, attend school secretaries’ 

meetings, visit individual schools, and meet with staff where there are identified 

problems with new student enrollment. Creating an atmosphere for open dialogue, 

examining situations from different perspectives, and having a willingness to 

change laid the groundwork for good collaboration among the agencies and helped 

facilitate the creation of a seamless enrollment process. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 16
Another policy change started at the request of one of the school sites. The 

collaborative group created an Affidavit of Temporary Residence form for students 

living in housing where there is not a recorded address. This form was translated 

from English to the other primary languages in the district – Spanish, Armenian, 

and Korean. Another form was created explaining to parents the desire of school 

staff to check on a student’s wellbeing if the student stops attending school without 

withdrawing. A parent’s signature allows the shelter staff to tell school personnel 

whether the student is still living there if the school contacts them. (The shelter 

staff member does not tell the school staff person where the student moved, only 

that he/she no longer lives there.) This has helped the school sites determine 

enrollment status while avoiding breaches of confidentiality. 

The primary focus of the Glendale Homeless Coalition is to have different agencies 

within the city work together to assist homeless individuals and families. Building 

on that focus, the Children and Homelessness Collaborative has not only increased 

community awareness about the needs of homeless students, they have also 

fostered a better understanding by the collaborative members of each other’s 

cultures leading to closer agency relationships and improved services for students 

and families. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 17
Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County (FL) 

Several years ago, the Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County recognized a lack 

of affordable, transitional, and emergency housing as well as a need to disseminate 

information regarding available services for the homeless. Acknowledging that one 

agency could not provide all services needed, the Coalition began working on its 

HUD Continuum of Care that includes public, private, and faith-based agencies. It 

created a formal memorandum of understanding with shared funding among the 

agencies. Joanne Conger Huber, Pasco County’s liaison for homeless education, says 

collaboration among the agencies has increased multifold resulting in many service 

gaps being filled. 

The Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program has been a 

member of the Coalition the last six years collaborating with other agencies in 

providing services for homeless families. With the Coalition as the lead agency, 

direct administrative assistance from Pasco County, and active agency involvement 

from the Continuum of Care, a unified effort in assisting the homeless population 

has been established. The collaborative focuses on providing ongoing services for 

homeless families as well as specific projects such as the point-in-time homeless 

count and Memorial Day events which are targeted specifically at the homeless 

population. Each agency provides particular services as determined by their 

funding. EHCY is responsible for education including educating parents regarding 

resources available to assist their family. 

“Developing relationships is imperative 

for effective collaboration.” 

Joanne Conger Huber 

Representatives from these collaborative agencies meet monthly but are in touch 

with each other at least weekly. Some of the currently involved agencies and their 

contributions are: 

 Gulf Coast Community Care Shelter, Salvation Army Domestic Violence 

Shelter – now allow referrals from collaborators 

 Head Start/Pre-K programs – prioritize homeless children 

 Health Department – offers free school physicals 

 Pasco County Social Services – developed a program to help families who are 

doubled up (the largest population served by the collaborative) with moving 

expenses 

 Youth and Family Alternatives – developed a program to assist with child care 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 18
According to Ms. Huber, developing relationships with personnel from other 

agencies is imperative for effective collaboration and she stresses the importance of 

discussing how the collaboration will be a win-win situation for everyone involved. 

Her relationships with shelter staff were developed through on-site visitations on a 

regular, pre-determined schedule. 

One barrier to the collaboration’s effective implementation was that some agency 

personnel did not feel comfortable sharing information. This was overcome by 

consistently working on the development of non-threatening relationships within 

the collaborative. Confidentiality was a concern at the domestic violence shelters, so 

a family release form was created to authorize the shelter to direct services to the 

family and EHCY to provide support and supplemental assistance. 

 

Two particularly helpful lessons learned were to (1) know the agency personnel and 

present requests from their perspective and (2) be patient; developing relationships 

requires consistency over a period of time. The most positive outcomes are that 

agencies have learned to work together and now provide better and more 

comprehensive services to the homeless families. 

Win-Win Worksheet

1. What do you want? 

2. What is the other agency’s mission? 

3. What does the other agency want? 

4. How can you frame what you want to make it 

coincide with what the other agency wants? 

5. What can you offer that will advance the 

collaborative’s mission?

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 19
Project HOPE of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (NC) 

Jerrilyn Johnson, a former guidance counselor, began her work in homeless 

education in 1996 in a part-time Project HOPE Case Manager position funded by a 

McKinney-Vento subgrant. After taking her current position as local homeless 

liaison for the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (WSFCS), she discovered a 

tremendous need for additional funding, personal items, school supplies, data 

collection improvements, referral information, and more. Although Winston-Salem 

had an active Homeless Council that included many agencies, none dealt primarily 

with children or students. Desire to fill the needs of homeless children precipitated 

the development of the many collaborative services and activities now in place to 

assist these students and their families. According to Jerrilyn, “I spent the first year 

working out of my car, writing grants. I spent entire days in shelters to get the feel 

of what that experience is like.” This is how she learned the context and cultures of 

other organizations which is such an important part of successful collaborative 

efforts. 

In 1997, a full-time caseworker position was funded through the McKinney-Vento 

subgrant. That same year, the City of Winston-Salem Housing / Neighborhood 

Development Department (H/ND) included Project HOPE in a HUD Continuum of 

Care grant proposal as “a supportive service” providing direct services to homeless 

students and their families. Funds from the HUD grant cover the case manager 

position, a teaching position, and some administrative funding. 

“I spent the first year working out of my car, 

writing grants. I spent entire days in shelters to 

get the feel of what that experience is like.” 

Jerrilyn Johnson

Joining the Winston-Salem Council for the Homeless (approximately 40 agencies) 

opened dialogue related to the needs of homeless children and their families and led 

to collaborative relationships with many of the other members. Jerrilyn also serves 

on the Goodwill (Industries) Community Council, a 30-member collaboration that 

provides enrichment, educational training, and extensive opportunities to the 

disenfranchised population in the community. Goodwill provides a store that assists 

with funding for training and provides education and training for homeless 

students. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 20
Project HOPE staff members participate on many other councils, boards, and 

committees including the North Carolina Interagency Council for Coordinating 

Homeless Programs which hosts conferences and provides other support and 

information and the Teen Pregnancy Council which provides services for homeless 

youth who may be pregnant or parents. Past funding has been received from 

agencies as diverse as a charitable trust foundation, a local medical school, and 

Goodwill Industries. 

A common barrier to successful collaboration is often simply that agencies are not 

familiar with each other’s work. To overcome this, Project HOPE staff members 

meet with agencies to explain who they are and what services they can provide. 

They attend community meetings, festivals, etc. and distribute literature including 

Project HOPE pamphlets and the requirements of recent legislation related to 

homeless children and their families. 

The most positive outcomes of all these collaborative relationships include: 

 Establishing a system of support 

 Working on a system of information sharing 

 Exploring funding opportunities 

 Increasing awareness of issues related to homeless students 

 Providing a coordinated system of support for project hope 

Jerrilyn’s advice to those considering collaboration is: 

 Learn all you can about the other agency (vision, mission, history, etc.) 

 Know the role of the other agency in the relationship 

 Provide clear goals and expectations for the relationship 

 Agree to have open and honest dialogue 

 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 21
Broward County Schools (FL) 

Dianne Sepielli started working in homeless education for Broward County in 1991. 

In the last fourteen years, her program has partnered with agencies as diverse as 

the county government, YMCA, Salvation Army, children’s museum, NOVA 

University, Humana Foundation, Bank Atlantic, and FEMA. Each of these and 

many other collaborative efforts are based on Dianne’s networking plan which boils 

down to building relationships in the community. This is definitely not just a job for 

her; she says she never lets anyone get away without talking to them about 

homeless kids. 

Children’s Museum. Homeless education folks usually go to other homeless 

service providers for help, but Dianne advises: “Think outside the box!” She is also 

in charge of the district’s character education program. Art teachers wanted to 

incorporate character education into their program, so Dianne met with the local 

children’s museum director to set that up. Then, because she never lets anyone get 

away without talking to them about homeless kids, she asked the director if they’d 

ever done anything with homeless kids. He agreed to consider it. The result was 

ArtREACH (Reconnecting and Educating homeless Adolescents through Creativity 

and Hope) the product of a collaboration among the museum, School Board of 

Broward County, and the Salvation Army. 

“Building relationships is the most important 

thing...We must get out and network; 

otherwise, homeless children are overlooked. 

They’re invisible until we bring it to the 

attention of the community.” 

Dianne Sepielli 

“Think outside the box!” 

Dianne Sepielli

What started as a program that included the museum staff visiting shelters a 

couple times a month has evolved into a well-respected after-school program. 

Homeless children are bused to the program based at the Salvation Army every day 

from 2 to 6 p.m. While there they rotate between three activities: homework 

assistance led by teachers from the school district, an arts-based curriculum, and 

recreation. The program also offers weekly counseling, and once a month the 

students visit the museum itself for more hands-on arts activities. This has not only 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 22
opened up a whole new world for the kids but also for the museum staff who had 

never had any contact with homeless children. The program has received a great 

deal of attention – even being featured in a Time Magazine article which spawned 

generous local matching support. 

For families transitioning out of shelters, child care expenses are often enough to 

catapult them right back into a homeless situation. Utilizing a team approach to the 

problem, the county now provides 15 months of childcare after families leave the 

shelters. Recently, the commissioners added funds to cover four months rent and a 

security deposit for these families in transition. Dianne’s teamwork with the county 

commissioners has led the commissioners to seek her input before writing their 

annual strategic plan or addressing any other issue concerning homelessness. 

Broward Coalition for the Homeless held monthly meetings attended by around 100 

agency directors. When Dianne realized the information did not always filter down 

to the case managers in these agencies, she asked to meet with the case managers 

as a group. Initially, the discussions at those meetings centered on educational 

issues, but now discussions at those meetings are around a plethora of topics and 

include staffing issues with the families. 

When Dianne met with a Senior Vice President of Bank Atlantic and explained the 

problems formerly homeless families have in buying their own houses, the bank 

initiated H2H (Homeless to Home) ownership enabling people to go from homeless 

to home ownership in 8-12 months. 

Barriers to Collaboration 

Many years ago, Dianne’s first exposure to Florida’s Department of Children and 

Families (DCF) was while accompanying a client there and both felt that client 

service was an issue. Dianne called a contact at DCF that she’d met through 

another homeless coalition and offered to do some training if DCF would assign one 

person in each of their offices as a contact for the homeless. DCF leaders agreed. 

This didn’t circumvent the process; it just insured that the homeless would receive 

services like everyone else. Later, the same system was set up with the Broward 

County Family Assistance Centers (FAC). This highlights the opportunities liaisons 

have to help other agencies improve their systems and processes, i.e., cutting off 

benefits because people don’t respond to correspondence sent thru the mail. 

Broward County now has an annual planning day to address homeless issues. They 

identify barriers and unmet needs and use creative problem solving to address 

them. This way they get input, and therefore buy-in, from the community. Once 

needs are determined, the county can write requests for proposals that require 

addressing these particular issues. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 23
HEART Program, Spokane (WA) Public Schools 

About 16 years ago, homeless parents in Spokane, WA, expecting to be in shelters a 

very short time, often decided not to enroll their children in the neighborhood 

schools. It was long before the McKinney-Vento legislation, and homeless children 

were not allowed to continue at their school of origin, so parents chose to wait until 

they moved into more permanent housing. Unfortunately, families were frequently 

in shelters far longer than they had anticipated which meant their children were 

out of school for weeks or even months at a time. In 1989, a collaborative effort 

among the Spokane Public Schools, the YWCA, and homeless shelters serving 

families with children created a separate school at the YWCA with an after-school 

program added later. Although lots of needed services were provided to the children, 

regrettably academics took a back seat and this led to a very high retention rate. 

The collaborators recognized their responsibility to provide a quality academic 

atmosphere along with addressing other things such as housing, medical, and 

clothing issues. A task force was convened to create a new vision for the program. 

The task force included representatives of the school district, YWCA, three 

universities, shelters, school board, and the city human services agency, along with 

the three teachers from the school. The HEART (Homeless Education and Resource 

Team) program was created. A segregated school model no longer seemed the best 

solution, so an integrated support model was created to re-focus on education. The 

attitude is now that the children are the responsibility of the school district. 

According to Edie Sims, Spokane’s district liaison for homeless education, “We are 

educators. We can provide lots of other services but we have failed the kids unless 

they receive a quality education. These are school children who are temporarily 

homeless. The program is a support to the school. They are not ‘our kids’; they are 

the school district’s kids. Calling them ‘my kids’ takes away the district’s 

responsibility.” 

“We are educators. We can provide lots of other 

services, but we have failed the kids unless they 

receive a quality education. These are school children 

who are temporarily homeless. The program is a 

support to the school. They are not ‘our kids’; they are 

the school district’s kids. Calling them ‘my kids’ takes 

away the district’s responsibility.” 

Edie Sims

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 24
Many of Spokane’s family situations confirmed research which says families often 

spend time doubled up before going into shelters. In the YWCA school, only kids 

from the shelters were served. When those students were integrated into 

neighborhood schools and school personnel were trained how to recognize the signs 

of homelessness, many more children were identified and served. 

Make no mistake; collaboration was difficult both in 1999 when homeless students 

were integrated into neighborhood schools and at the end of the 2004-2005 school 

year when the HEART offices moved from the YWCA into a school district building. 

Barriers included people who did not want to change; agencies with different 

cultures, philosophies, and languages; and two conflicting definitions of 

homelessness – one from McKinney-Vento and one from HUD. But those involved 

helped each other work through the issues. The ones who did not want to change for 

personal reasons were challenged to focus on the children’s best interest instead of 

their own desires. Because different agency cultures use various terms for the same 

concept, partners had to “learn the language” of the other agencies - a necessary 

step for successful communication any time representatives from different 

organizations work together. HUD and McKinney-Vento use different definitions of 

homelessness, so it was decided that data could not be accurately combined. Now 

each agency keeps its own records. They also had to give themselves and each other 

permission to make mistakes while allowing the collaborative to evolve. 

The collaborators laid down the following ground rules which became key to their 

success: 

 Remember that each partner is focused on doing what’s best for the kids; find 

a way to trust and honor each other. 

 Communicate clearly. Problems often occur because of semantics, so if 

something is said that doesn’t sound right, ask for clarification. 

 Appreciate and celebrate what’s been done in the past, but recognize that we 

must move forward. 

They also agreed that their work was about education which made it a community 

issue – far more than just community awareness. Edie reports some valuable 

lessons that came out of the experience for school districts collaborating with other 

agencies to better serve homeless children and families are: 

 Collaboration is hard but absolutely necessary, and it is worth the effort. 

 Confidentiality is a must. 

 Be the one who believes the glass is half full. 

 It is always about children and families; don’t lose sight of that. 

 Each collaborative must have a mission statement for the program and each 

part of the program. 

 Homeless education programs support the school district’s efforts to serve 

children; they are not “our kids”; the whole school district must take 

responsibility for serving them. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 25
 Educators can ensure the kids get lots of other services, but have failed 

unless the students receive a quality education. 

 Nonprofits are competitive for funds, so they must compete for the positive 

publicity that will help garner those funds. When working with them, be 

sensitive to their organizations’ interests. 

 When approaching possible supporters, remember to ask for referrals to 

others who might help with funding. 

 Identify the needs of the families and search out diverse ways to fill those 

needs – universities, retired teachers, sewing circle clubs, etc. 

 Local liaisons must become knowledgeable by spending time on the web, 

searching data, and watching for trends. Knowing facts and figures can help 

counter the misconceptions people have. 

Share personal stories of the kids. For example, explain that many 

unaccompanied youth couch surf because of difficult family situations not 

because they don’t want to be in school. Talk about how your program helps 

them succeed in school, graduate, and attend college. 

Tips for new liaisons: 

 

 Network, network, network! 

 Tell people who you are and what you do. Educate them 

about identifying and serving homeless children and 

youth. 

 Join the local homeless coalition and HUD Continuum of 

Care to gain a broader view of homeless issues and 

share issues specific to homeless students and their 

families. 

 Develop collaborative working relationships with other 

homeless service providers such as the county/state 

human service agencies, shelters, YMCA/YWCA, Boys 

and Girls Clubs, Goodwill, etc. Don’t forget those in your 

own school district – migrant education, Title I, special 

education, transportation, guidance counselors, school 

social workers and nurses, those who work with dropout 

prevention, before- and after-school and mentoring 

programs, etc. 

 Remember, people want to help so give them concrete 

ideas about where and how they can get involved. 

 Inform the people who answer the phone for the district 

office so they know where to refer questions, 

volunteers, and donors. 

 Think outside the box! 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 26
Tennessee 

Hamilton County, Tennessee is the home of a problem-based collaborative. A large 

number of students were losing credits when they transferred between schools on a 

block system and those on a regular system. This led to behavioral problems and an 

increased dropout rate. Central to the issue was the district’s reliance on contract 

agencies to transport children in the custody of the Department of Children’s 

Services (DCS). 

Lois Rhea, Educational Consultant for DCS, had worked with all the agencies 

involved but they had not worked with each other, so she arranged and facilitated a 

meeting allowing all the parties to discuss the issues. Those who attended included 

representatives from the Hamilton County schools, DCS, contract agencies, local 

homeless coalition, and the community. They all voiced their concerns and goals 

and resolved to look at the issues from the other participants’ perspectives and to 

keep their focus on acting in the best interest of the children. One result of the 

meeting was the decision to only allow students to be moved either within the same 

school zone or between grading periods. This insured that students would not lose 

credits when they changed schools. 

The results for the students were less frustration and therefore fewer behavior 

problems. Those involved in the meeting were pleasantly surprised by the progress 

they made. Because relationships were formed as this problem was solved, the 

group is now able to tackle bigger issues. According to Lois, “Once they tasted 

success, it provided the impetus to go on and do more.” 

Janice Routon, Tennessee State Coordinator for Homeless Education and Susan 

Mee, Senior Counsel for Education Issues at the Tennessee DCS, who have 

collaborated on many issues, agree on the following: 

Marks of Good Collaborations: 

 Open, comfortable communication. 

 Common goal of focusing on the best interest of the kids, not pointing fingers 

at each other or advocating for a particular agency. 

 Participants understand there is a mutual benefit to transparency in their 

relationships. 

 Because everyone is busy, there will be interruptions and lapses in the work, 

but that does not have to result in loss of momentum. 

Recommended Strategies 

 Ask for clarification about foggy areas. 

 Deal with people openly and honestly. 

 Acknowledge and work on the trust factor. 

 Provide a safe environment for people to hash out issues/problems and ask 

questions. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 27 
San Antonio (TX) ISD Transitions Program 

Bexar County, Texas has 17 different school districts located in the metro San 

Antonio area. Estella Garza is the liaison for the inner city district, San Antonio 

ISD. Five years ago, her district along with two others, were the only ones in the 

county with McKinney-Vento subgrants. She and the other two liaisons in districts 

with subgrants realized that families often bounced around among the 17 districts, 

so the three of them decided to try and work with all the districts’ liaisons. The 

three included two with MSW degrees and one with a background in education. 

Even among these three, there was a steep learning curve concerning sensitivity to 

homeless children and families. 

Their efforts to educate not only school district personnel but also the community 

led them to create the Homeless Education Council. They set goals, created a 

mission statement, and initially invited those who had written letters of support for 

their subgrant proposals to join the council. They trained their supporters about 

student homelessness and issues concerning service providers connecting with the 

school district. Over the first three years, the liaisons met twice a month – once to 

create a meeting agenda and then with the group as a whole. In between meetings, 

they called each other when kids moved to make referrals for services, etc. They 

offered to allow the students to stay in their school of origin but could not offer 

transportation. (This was before McKinney-Vento required transportation be 

provided.) 

During this time, one of the liaisons was on the board of the local homeless coalition 

and one was on the HUD Continuum of Care. Both were pushing their respective 

groups to pay more attention to children’s issues, and both felt they made headway. 

Now both groups have more activities that cater to children, look more closely at 

issues concerning doubled up families, and are more aware of educational issues 

that affect homeless students. 

Despite two more districts in the county receiving subgrants, participation on the 

HEC has dropped. Last year only six of 17 districts reported the numbers of 

homeless students in their district. Garza cites all sorts of barriers that impact 

whether the numbers are reported by the district. Districts have different methods 

of identifying homeless students. Not all districts use a residency questionnaire and 

some have more shelters serving children than others. Also, some liaisons have 

other job duties leaving them less time to devote to homeless issues. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 28
Some lessons learned include that a local liaison must: 

 Have adequate communication skills to successfully enter any arena 

whether it’s one-on-one conversations, formal trainings, or interactions in 

civic and community meetings 

 Communicate in a professional way what he/she does and how it’s done 

 Be discerning enough to determine the systems where homeless kids can 

be identified and formulate a way to work with each of those systems 

 Stay positive – be a glass half-full person 

Tips for more seasoned liaisons: 

 

 Think outside the box! 

 If there’s not a local homeless coalition in your area, 

start one by inviting local service providers, 

community leaders, business people, politicians, etc. 

to discuss issues and brainstorm solutions. 

 Create new collaborative relationships with agencies 

outside the typical service provider realm, i.e., 

banks, museums, orchestras, universities, 

community/ neighborhood development, local 

businesses, medical, vision, and dental schools and 

practices, law enforcement, civic groups, chambers 

of commerce, restaurants, school 

clubs/organizations, newspapers, etc. and recognize 

that each brings a unique perspective to the issues. 

 Agree to serve on boards of community, nonprofit, 

and other agencies that are supportive of homeless 

education. 

 Share stories about the needs of homeless students 

with everyone you meet. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 29
Overall Lessons Learned 

Although collaboration is difficult, the collaborators all agreed that it is absolutely 

necessary and, ultimately, working together to find solutions makes everyone’s job 

easier. Keeping everyone on the same page is a challenge, but partnerships with 

diverse agencies (not just those typically involved with the homeless population) 

may be the only way to provide all the resources to meet the various needs of 

homeless children and their families. 

Creating an atmosphere for open dialogue, examining situations from different 

perspectives, and having a willingness to change are foundational for developing 

positive relationships with personnel from other agencies - an imperative for 

effective collaboration. It is vital to know the other collaborative agencies and their 

staff members in order to create and maintain common focus, communicate 

effectively, problem solve creatively, and present requests from perspectives the 

other agency members understand. 

There is no one-size-fits-all model for collaboration, so each collaborative group 

must examine its own unique situation to develop what works best. Building 

relationships requires consistency over time. Participants should understand there 

is a mutual benefit to transparency in their relationships, but everyone needs 

permission to make mistakes as the collaborative evolves. Members must be patient 

with themselves and each other as they work to build a safe environment for people 

to hash out issues and problems and to ask questions. Below are some ideas to 

consider as a collaboration takes shape: 

 Only buy-in from all those involved will sustain the work. 

 People will take part in what they help create, so establish the expectation 

that everyone will contribute. 

 The common goal is focusing on the best interest of the kids, not pointing 

fingers at each other or advocating for a particular agency. 

 Learn all you can about the other agencies (vision, mission, history, etc.) 

and understand their role in the collaborative. 

 Provide clear goals and expectations for the relationships. 

 Remember that each partner is focused on doing what’s best for the kids; 

find a way to trust and honor each other. 

 Nonprofits are competitive for funds, so they also compete for positive 

publicity that will help garner those funds. When working with them, be 

sensitive to their organizations’ interests. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 30
 Starting the collaboration with a small manageable project will build 

confidence to maintain momentum and undertake larger tasks. 

 Secure a commitment from agency leaders to loosen their agency-specific 

regulations in order to meet client needs. 

 Empower decision making authority within the collaborative instead of 

requiring each member to clear decisions through their agency channels. 

Establishing honest and frank communication patterns is the basis of building 

trusting relationships. To ensure this: 

 Agree to have open and honest dialogue. This is particularly important 

when defining problems, recognizing differences, and deciding the specifics 

of how to collaborate. 

 Insist on strict confidentiality. 

 Agencies have different languages, so communicate clearly. Problems often 

occur because of semantics; ask for clarification about anything that is 

unclear. 

 Establish expectations and design procedures to enhance the frequency 

and level of communication. 

Concentrating on the core vision instead of structures or processes helps 

collaboratives maintain focus on what they intend to accomplish instead of getting 

sidetracked by how they go about doing that. This opens opportunities for thinking 

outside the box and being creative in addressing issues and problems. It also helps 

the collaborative withstand changes in membership, organizational structure, etc. 

Each person and each agency will have their own priorities, but the collaborative 

must concentrate on the overall goal of the group: how to better serve children and 

families. To do this, collaborators advise: 

 Begin with client issues and problems not preconceived solutions. 

 Think outside the box; identify the needs of children and their families and 

search out diverse ways to fill those needs. 

 Encourage participants to step back and question why things have always 

been done in a particular way. One of the principal stumbling blocks to 

successful collaboration is overcoming customs and habits. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 31
 Take the initiative to address problems and find creative solutions; 

educators can ensure that the kids get lots of other services, but have 

failed them unless they receive a quality education. 

 Involve the community to provide new perspectives on issues and problems 

and empower those receiving services to share responsibility for finding 

solutions. 

Special advice for collaboratives seeking outside funding includes: 

 Be knowledgeable. Spend time on the web, search data, and watch for 

trends. Know facts and figures so you can counter misconceptions people 

have. 

 Be the one who believes the glass is half full. 

 When approaching possible supporters, remember to ask for referrals to 

others who might help with funding. 

 Share personal stories about the kids. Talk about how your program helps 

them succeed in school, graduate, attend college, etc. 

 Clearly demonstrate to funding sources the value of working together. 

 Be patient and persevere! 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 32
Bibliography 

Action Alliance for Children. (n.d.). Communities committed to children: A special 

report by Action Alliance for Children. Retrieved November 5, 2004, from 

http://www.4children.org/news/cccintro.htm. 

Adelman, H. & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning: Beyond schoollinked services and full-service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 

67, 408-421. 

Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1998, Winter). Involving teachers in collaborative

efforts to better address the barriers to student learning. Preventing School 

Failure, 42 (2), 55-60. 

Adelman, H. & Taylor, L. (2002). Building comprehensive, multifaceted, and 

integrated approaches to address barriers to student learning. Childhood 

Education, 78(5), 261-268. 

Adkins, A., Awsumb, C., Noblit, G., Richards, P. (Eds.). (1999). Working together? 

Grounded perspectives on interagency collaboration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton 

Press. 

Altshuler, S. (2003). From barriers to successful collaboration: Public schools and 

child welfare working together. Social Work, 48(1), 52-63. 

Anderson-Butcher, D. & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to 

serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 

39-53. 

Awsumb, C. (1999) Part III conclusion: Common themes from best efforts. In A. 

Adkins, C. Awsumb, G. Noblit, & P. Richards (Eds.), Working together? 

Grounded perspectives on interagency collaboration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton 

Press. 

Awsumb, C. & McCadden, B. (1999) The floating think tank: Wake County 

children’s initiative. In A. Adkins, C. Awsumb, G. Noblit, & P. Richards 

(Eds.), Working together? Grounded perspectives on interagency collaboration. 

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Better Homes Fund. (1999). Homeless Children: America’s new outcasts. Newton, 

MA: Author. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 33
Bruner, C., Kunesh, L., & Knuth, R. (1992). What does research say about 

interagency collaboration? Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional 

Educational Laboratory. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from 

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/8agcycol.htm. 

Burt, M. (2001). What will it take to end homelessness? Retrieved August 19, 2005 

from the Urban Institute website: 

http://www.urban.org/template.cfm?Template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublicati

on.cfm&PublicationID=7281&NavMenuID=95

Cauce, A., Paradise, M., Ginzler, J., Embry, L., Morgan, C., Lohr, Y., et.al. (2000). 

The characteristics of mental health of homeless adolescents: Age and gender 

differences. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(4), 230-239. 

Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2004). Sustaining school and 

community efforts to enhance outcomes for children and youth: A guidebook 

and tool kit. (Part II, Section 3, pp. 96-106). Los Angeles: Author. 

Doerre, Y. & Mihaly, L. (1996). The collaborative process. In Home sweet home: 

Building collaborations to keep families together (pp. 41-44). Washington, DC: 

CWLA Press.. 

Duffield, B., Heybach, L. & Julianelle, P. (2002). Educating children without 

housing: A primer on legal requirements & implementation strategies for 

educators, advocates and policy makers. (Horton-Newell, A & Murphy, M., 

Eds.). Chicago: American Bar Association. 

Dunkle, M., & Nash, M. (1989, March 15). Creating effective interagency 

collaboratives. Education Week, 44(35). 

Durham, K., (2004, August). San Francisco’s Homeless Education Plan. San Mateo, 

CA: Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. 

Hightower, A., Nathanson, S., & Wimberly, G. (1997). Meeting the educational needs 

of homeless children and youth: A resource for schools and communities. (U.S. 

Department of Education Publication No. 0-16-049242-4). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Holloway, J. (Dec2002/Jan2003). Addressing the needs of homeless students.

Educational Leadership, 60 (4), 89-90. 

Howell, J., Kelly, M., Palmer, J., & Mangum, R. (2004). Integrating child welfare, 

juvenile justice, and other agencies in a continuum of services. Child Welfare, 

83(2), 143-156. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 34
Human Interaction Research Institute. (2004, October). HIRI’s Community 

Collaboration Projects. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from 

http://www.humaninteract.org/images/HIRIcollaborationprojects.pdf

Lawson, H. & Barkdull, C. (2000). Gaining the collaborative advantage and 

promoting systems and cross-systems change. In A. Sallee, K. Briar-Lawson, 

& H. Lawson (Eds.), New century practice with child welfare families (pp.245-

270). Las Cruces, NM: Eddie Bowers. 

Lawson, H. & Briar-Lawson, K. (1997). Connecting the dots: Progress toward the 

integration of school reform, school-linked services, parent involvement and 

community schools. Oxford, OH: Danforth Foundation and the Institute for 

Educational Renewal, Miami University. 

Long, L. (2004). Human services for homeless people. In H.S. Harris, D.C. Maloney, 

& F.M. Rother (Eds.), Human services: Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 

211-223). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Luongo, P. (2000). Partnering child welfare, juvenile justice, and behavioral health 

with schools. Professional School Counseling, 3(5), 308-313. 

MacLean, M., Embry, L., and Cauce, A. (1999). Homeless adolescents’ paths to 

separation from family: Comparison of family characteristics, psychological 

adjustment, and victimization. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 179-

187. 

Melaville, A., & Blank, M. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily 

system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

National Center for Children in Poverty. (1992, September). School-based Services 

Integration. In Integrating Services Integration: An Overview of Initiatives, 

Issues, and Possibilities. (pp. 23-30). Retrieved September 1, 2004, from 

http://www.nccp.org/media/isi92-text.pdf

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2001). Education of homeless children and 

youth. (NCH Fact Sheet #10). Retrieved October 5, 2004 from 

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/edchild.html

Noblit, G. (1999). Mapping current practice: Case studies of service delivery. In A. 

Adkins, C. Awsumb, G. Noblit, & P. Richards (Eds.), Working together? 

Grounded perspectives on interagency collaboration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton 

Press. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 35
Noblit, G., Richards, P., & Adkins, A., (1999). Part 1 Conclusion. In A. Adkins, C. 

Awsumb, G. Noblit, & P. Richards (Eds.), Working together? Grounded 

perspectives on interagency collaboration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Noblit, G., Richards, P., Adkins, A., & Awsumb, C. (1999). Looking forward: Lessons 

for future practice. In A. Adkins, C. Awsumb, G. Noblit, & P. Richards (Eds.), 

Working together? Grounded perspectives on interagency collaboration. 

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

P.L. 100-77, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Codified at 42 

U.S.C. 11301. (1987, July 22). 

Rafferty, Y. (1997). Meeting the educational needs of homeless children. 

Educational Leadership, 55(4), 48-52. 

Reed-Victor, E. and Stronge, J. (2002). Homeless students and resilience: Staff 

perspectives on individual and environmental factors. Journal of Children & 

Poverty, 8(2), 159-173. 

Stronge, J. H. (1995) Educating homeless children: How can we help? Journal for 

Just and Caring Education, 1(2), 128-141. 

Stronge, J.H. (1997). A long road ahead: A progress report on educating homeless 

children and youth in America. Journal of Children and Poverty, 3(2), 13-31. 

Stronge, J. & Reed-Victor, E. (Eds.) (2000). Educating homeless students: Promising 

practices. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. 

Sullivan, C.J. & Sugarman, J.M. (1996). State policies affecting school-linked 

integrated services. Remedial and Special Education, 17(5), 284-292. 

Taylor, L. & Adelman, H. (2000). Connecting schools, families, and communities. 

Professional School Counseling, 3(5), 298-307. 

Taylor, L. & Adelman, H. (1996). Restructuring education support services and 

integrating community resources: Beyond the full service school model. 

School Psychology Review, 25(4), 431-445. 

Thompson, D. (1998). Breaking the cycle of poverty: Models of legal advocacy to 

implement the educational promise of the McKinney Act for homeless 

children and youth. Creighton Law Review, 31(4), 1209-1249. 

Thompson, S., Pollio, D., Constantine, J., Reid, D., & Nebbitt, V. (2002). Short-term 

outcomes for youth receiving runaway and homeless shelter services. 

Research on Social Work Practice, 12(5) 589-603. 

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 36
Tourse, W.C. & Mooney, J.F. (Eds.). (1999). Collaborative practice: School and 

human service partnerships. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 

Tucker, P. (1999). Providing educational services to homeless students: A 

multifaceted response to a complex problem. Journal for a Just and Caring 

Education, 5, 88-107. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program. (2000). Report to 

Congress: Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Verstegen, D. (1996). Reforming American education policy for the twenty-first 

century. In J.G. Cibulka & W.J. Kriteck (Eds.), Coordination among schools, 

families, and communities: Prospects for educational reform (pp. 269-296). 

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Collaborations of Schools and Social Service Agencies Finalized Draft Page 37