PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

THE EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH 

PROGRAM: LEARNING TO SUCCEED 

Volume I: Reducing Barriers for Homeless Children for Access and 

Achievement 

FINAL REPORT 

2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC. #2000-13 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

THE EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH 

PROGRAM: LEARNING TO SUCCEED 

Volume I: Reducing Barriers for 

Homeless Children and Youth for Access and Achievement 

Clarenda M. Phillips 

Jessica K. Wodatch 

Catherine T. Kelliher 

Policy Studies Associates, Inc. 

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Evaluation Service 

Washington, D.C. 20202 

2002 

U. S. Department of Education 
Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Eugene Hickok 

Under Secretary 

Planning and Evaluation Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Elementary and Secondary Education Division 

Ricky T. Takai 

Director 

October 2002 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission 

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U. S. Department of Education, Planning and 

Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division, The Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth Program: Learning to Succeed, Washington, D.C., 2002. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244; 

or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in 

your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for 

the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center (202) 

260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 1 

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 11 

Overview of the Study Design....................................................................................................... 13 

 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 14 

Organization of This Report .......................................................................................................... 15 

STATE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY RESPONSES TO THE McKINNEY ACT......................... 16 

Unresolved Legislative and Policy Issues: Transportation, Guardianship, and 

Immunization Requirements as Barriers to School Enrollment ............................................... 17 

 Transportation................................................................................................................... 18 

 Guardianship Requirements.............................................................................................. 19 

 Immunization Requirements............................................................................................. 20 

Remaining Legal Barriers: Attendance Policies and Secondary School Credit Accrual for 

Homeless Youth ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Barriers to School Success for Homeless Children and Youth...... ............ ............ .................... 22 

STATE-LEVEL SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL 

NEEDS OF HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH............................................................. 24 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training ................................................................................. 24 

Coordination and Collaboration..................................................................................................... 25 

Access to Educational Programs and Services............................................................................... 26 

 Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 28 

Activities of Other State-Level Agencies and Organizations........................................................ 30

DISTRICT-LEVEL SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES UNDER THE McKINNEY ACT................... 33 

Awarding McKinney Subgrants to Districts.................................................................................. 35 

District Services and Activities Under the McKinney Act ............................................................ 36 

District Staffing of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program ............... 37 

 Identification and School Placement................................................................................... 38 

 Transportation to School..................................................................................................... 39 

Before- and After-School Activities................................................................................. 41 

Improving the Access of Homeless Children and Youth to Educational Programs 

 and Services................................................................................................................ 42 

 Parent Involvement........................................................................................................... 44 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training .................................................................... 45 

Coordination and Collaboration Among Local Service Providers ................................... 46 

Data Collection, Monitoring, and Evaluation................................................................... 47 

Federal Support for District Programs........................................................................................... 49 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS................................................................. 51 

Recommendations of State Coordinators....................................................................................... 52

 Policy Implications........................................................................................................................ 53 

iii 
TABLES 

Table

1. State policies as barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth, 

as reported by state coordinators.................................................................................................... 17 

2. State funding for transporting homeless children and youth to school, 

as reported by state coordinators.................................................................................................... 19 

3. State immunization requirements for school enrollment, as reported by state coordinators ......... 21 

4. Coordination and collaboration for homeless children and youth, as reported by state 

coordinators ................................................................................................................................... 26 

5. Access of homeless children and youth to education programs and services, as reported 

by state coordinators...................................................................................................................... 28 

6. Data collection on homeless children and youth, as reported by state coordinators...................... 30 

7. State services provided to homeless children and youth other than through McKinney

subgrants to LEAs, as reported by state coordinators.................................................................... 32 

8. State allocation of McKinney program funds, 1997-98................................................................. 34 

iv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 1987, Congress enacted the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to confront the 

problems of homelessness in the United States. The act was amended in 1990 and 1994. Subtitle VII-B 

of the act, as amended in 1994, instructs states to ensure that homeless children and youth have equal 

access to the same, free, and appropriate public education as nonhomeless children and youth. The 1994 

amendments provide local educational authorities with increased flexibility in the use of funds, specify

the rights of homeless preschoolers to a free and appropriate public preschool education, give parents of 

homeless children and youth a greater voice in their children’s school placement, and require educational 

authorities to coordinate with housing authorities. 

This study is a follow-up to one completed in 1995, which looked at the educational provisions 

for homeless children and youth prior to the implementation of the 1994 amendments. It describes and 

analyzes four areas of state and local activity: (1) changes in education and services to homeless children 

and youth under the reauthorized McKinney Act; (2) services and activities of the state Office of the 

Coordinator of Education of Homeless Children and Youth, an office that the McKinney Act established 

in each state education agency (SEA); (3) the McKinney Act subgrant award process, and how LEAs with 

McKinney subgrants supplement the services available to homeless children and youth as well as remove 

the barriers to their enrollment and success in school; and (4) the establishment of programs and policies 

for homeless students in local education agencies (LEAs). Data collection for this study included a 

survey of all state coordinators of education of homeless children and youth and site visits to a sample of 

seven school districts that received McKinney grants and seven that did not receive McKinney grants. 

Overview of the McKinney Act, Subtitle VII-B 

Operating at an annual funding level of $28.8 million (FY 1998 and FY 1999), Subtitle VII-B of 

the McKinney Act is a relatively small program with broad provisions, goals, and objectives. The subtitle 

stipulates that 

• All homeless children and youth have equal access to the same, free, and appropriate 

public education as nonhomeless children and youth. 

• States must review and revise residency laws and “other laws, regulations, practices, or 

policies that may act as a barrier to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school of 

homeless children and homeless youth.”

1
• Students must not be separated from the mainstream school environment because of 

being homeless. 

• Homeless students must have access to education and other services, including public 

preschool education, needed to ensure that they have an opportunity to meet the same 

challenging performance standards to which all students are held. 

Each state is required to establish an Office of the State Coordinator of Education of Homeless 

Children and Youth. This office prepares and implements a state plan describing how the state will: (1) 

identify homeless children and youth; (2) assess their special needs; (3) facilitate coordination between 

SEAs and LEAs; and (4) coordinate with other education and child development programs to improve the 

provision of comprehensive services to homeless children and youth. Examination of the act’s

requirement that each state establish an Office of the State Coordinator of Education of Homeless 

Children and Youth indicated that 19 percent of state coordinators are supported full-time, and 81 percent 

are supported part-time with McKinney funds. For those state coordinators supported only part-time with 

McKinney Act funds, the remainder of their time is paid by other federal programs. Some state 

coordinators want the McKinney Act to require states with homeless populations above some minimum

number to have a full-time coordinator for homeless education issues. Part-time coordinators, particularly

those in states with large homeless populations, are often unable to fully meet all the demands of their 

position as defined by the act. 

In 1998, states awarded an average of $433,337 in McKinney funding to LEAs in the form of 

subgrants. The range in average subgrant allocation was wide, with a high of $127,700 in Texas and a 

low of $1,350 in Utah. 

Data collected from site visits indicate that districts with and without McKinney funds are finding 

ways to address at least some of the needs of homeless children and youth. However, LEAs with 

McKinney subgrants provide a broader range of educational and recreational services to homeless 

children and youth than do their non-McKinney counterparts. This is probably the result of a 

combination of factors, including the availability of McKinney dollars, dedicated district staff, and 

awareness of the requirements of the McKinney Act. In addition, districts with McKinney funds provide 

more professional development to district and school staff to increase the awareness of the rights and 

needs of homeless children and youth than do districts not receiving McKinney funds. Similarly,

McKinney subgrantees are also more likely to have after-school activities and programs for parents than 

their non-McKinney counterparts. 

The following sections highlight the study findings with regard to (1) state legislative and policy

responses to McKinney Act requirements, (2) state services and activities provided under the McKinney

Act, and (3) local services and activities under the McKinney Act. 

2
State Legislative and Policy Responses to the McKinney Act Requirements 

With few exceptions, state coordinators indicated that states have reviewed and revised their 

laws, regulations, and policies to remove obstacles to the education of homeless children and youth. 

However, the study reveals that significant barriers to homeless children and youth's education still exist. 

Most state coordinators want clarification of the McKinney Act and federal laws as they pertain to state 

and local responsibilities for immunizations, guardianship, transportation, and prekindergarten services. 

Transportation

When asked about changes in state laws, regulations, or practices related to transportation, 18 

coordinators reported that the lack of transportation still poses a barrier to school enrollment. Twentyfour coordinators named transportation problems as being among the top three barriers to school success 

for homeless children, and 19 reported transportation being among the top three barriers for homeless 

youth. 

Guardianship Requirements

The McKinney Act stipulates that state plans describe procedures for ensuring that guardianship 

issues do not pose enrollment delays for homeless children and youth. However, only 14 states allow 

children to enroll in school unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian. An additional four states allow 

only students in McKinney subgrant districts to enroll in school without a parent or guardian. Thirteen 

state coordinators, compared to 15 in 1995, reported that their state's requirement that a child or youth be 

enrolled in school by a parent or legal guardian constitutes a barrier to enrollment by homeless children 

and youth. 

3
Immunization Requirements

In 1995, only 10 states allowed students to enroll in school without being immunized against 

certain diseases. This study shows that 29 states now allow students to enroll in school without 

immunization. An additional six states allow only students in McKinney subgrant districts to enroll in 

school without immunization. Some states that require immunization have developed effective methods 

for immunizing homeless students or obtaining their immunization records. In others, however, homeless 

children and youth who are not immunized or who cannot document their immunizations may experience 

a barrier to enrolling in school. 

Attendance Policies and Secondary School Credit Accrual for Homeless Youth

During site visits, attendance policies and secondary school credit accrual emerged as remaining 

legal barriers for homeless youth. Such students who are unable to find stable shelter have difficulty

meeting state or district mandates regarding the number of days they must attend school to stay enrolled, 

be promoted to the next grade, and receive a high school diploma. Several state coordinators thought that 

the McKinney Act should mandate a grace period that allows homeless children and youth without proper 

documentation to enroll in school without delay. Furthermore, secondary students’ promotion and 

graduation may be jeopardized if they transfer schools in the middle of the year. Slow record transfers 

and different course requirements complicate credit accrual for these young people. 

Barriers to Academic Success for Homeless Children and Youth

The most often mentioned barrier to success for homeless children and youth was their frequent 

moves from school to school. More than one-quarter of state coordinators reported that the lack of 

awareness and sensitivity among school administrators and teachers to the specific educational needs of 

homeless children and youth was a barrier to these students' school success. Another quarter said that 

homeless children’s lack of an appropriate study area in which to complete school assignments (e.g., 

quiet, has a desk) was a barrier to school success. In addition, some state coordinators suggested that a 

longer award cycle for McKinney grants would allow districts to make continuous strides toward 

ensuring the enrollment and success of homeless children and youth. 

4
State Services and Activities Provided Under the McKinney Act 

Administrators responsible for state services and activities have concentrated on building 

awareness and sensitivity to the needs and rights of homeless children and youth and coordinating the 

efforts of agencies that serve this population. Nonetheless, these students' access to many educational 

programs is still limited. Most state coordinators want the coordinators of all federal programs, especially

Title I, to receive clear and concise directives about their role in educating homeless students, including 

reserving funds for these students. 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training

Significant differences exist among and within states in the level of community awareness about 

issues related to the definition, condition, needs, and rights of homeless children and youth. Two of the 

most frequent methods used by state coordinators for raising awareness among school personnel are 

distributing materials and conducting staff development meetings. 

Twenty-one state coordinators in this study reported that developing their state consolidated plan 

had made state program administrators more aware of the McKinney-funded services to homeless 

children and youth. However, nine state coordinators reported that some districts were not aware that 

they had a homeless population. Other data collected -- in November 1998 to January 1999 from a 

national representative sample of districts in a study of local implementation of federal programs -- 

indicated that 77 percent of all districts nationwide did not know whether they enrolled homeless children 

and youth in their district. 

Coordination and Collaboration

The McKinney Act directs states to coordinate their activities with school districts, agencies, and 

organizations that serve homeless children and youth. State coordinators indicated they coordinate and 

collaborate most with local education agencies, state government agencies, other offices within their state 

education agency, and homeless shelters. Nine state coordinators cited limited time and program-specific 

agendas as problems in coordinating or integrating the homeless program with other state programs. 

The two collaborative activities that state coordinators said had the most impact were 

participating in an interagency task force or committee on homelessness and building programmatic 

linkages among programs, agencies, or organizations serving homeless children and youth. Sharing data 

5
systems on homeless populations with other programs, agencies, or organizations was also a common 

strategy for improving services to homeless children and youth. 

Access to Educational Programs and Services

A large proportion of homeless students still experience difficulty in gaining access to needed 

educational services. State coordinators rated the following programs as difficult for homeless children 

and youth in their state to access1

: 

• special education (33 state coordinators); 

• Head Start or other publicly funded preschool programs (29 coordinators); 

• gifted and talented programs (27 coordinators); 

• Even Start or other family literacy programs (26 coordinators); and 

• programs for students with limited English proficiency (25 coordinators). 

Data Collection

The McKinney Act requires state coordinators to gather data on problems that homeless children 

and youth encounter in gaining access to public preschool programs and to public elementary and 

secondary schools. They must also report on schools’ difficulties in identifying the special needs of 

homeless children and youth, progress that the SEA and LEAs in the state have made in addressing such 

difficulties, and the successes of programs under Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney Act in ensuring that 

homeless children and youth enroll in, attend, and succeed in school. 

Data collected from both McKinney subgrantee and nonsubgrantee districts suggest that state 

coordinators routinely collect data on school enrollment. The next most common types of data on 

homeless students routinely collected were data on preschool age children, difficulties or problems 

experienced by school districts in serving them, and educational needs. However, states collect more data 

from McKinney than from non-McKinney districts. For example, not only do states routinely collect 

enrollment data from McKinney subgrantee districts, but they also ask for data on achievement, districts'

difficulties or problems in serving homeless students, the effectiveness of education programs and 

strategies, and education needs. 

 

1

 These data combine the “great difficulty” and “some difficulty” survey response categories.

6
Assistance from Other State-Level Agencies and Organizations

Other agencies and organizations assist state coordinators in two ways. First, they conduct 

professional development for educators and other school personnel that increase awareness of the needs 

and rights of homeless children and youth. Second, they coordinate activities of schools and agencies that 

serve homeless children and youth. They also assist by assessing the needs of homeless children and 

youth and providing before-school, after-school, and summer education programs. By collaborating with 

other agencies in these ways, state coordinators are able to carry out the McKinney Act mandate to 

develop relationships and coordinate with relevant education, child development or preschool programs, 

and other service providers to improve services to homeless children and youth. 

District Services and Activities Under the McKinney Act

Districts deliver various services and activities in an effort to ensure that homeless children and 

youth receive a free and appropriate education. On a basic level, they usually work to identify homeless 

students, place them in school, and provide them with transportation to school. To enhance the education 

of homeless students, districts sometimes offer before- and after-school programs, work to ensure that 

homeless students have access to other educational programs, and provide parent education. Districts also 

tend to coordinate and collaborate with local social service providers and to work to increase knowledge 

about the education of homeless students by providing awareness raising and sensitivity training. Local 

liaisons, appointed by district officials, are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the enrollment of 

homeless children and youth in school, establishing procedures for the identification and placement of 

homeless children and youth, developing project guidelines, collaborating with local social service 

providers, evaluating the program, documenting services and activities, and disseminating information. 

Identification and School Placement

Most McKinney subgrantees devote time and resources to identifying and placing homeless 

children and youth in school. Liaisons also noted the importance of shelter providers emphasizing school 

attendance. In several districts, liaisons depend on the collaboration of shelter staff to see that homeless 

students enroll in school. 

The identification of homeless children and youth in non-McKinney districts is generally not a 

systematic or formalized process. Most districts rely on homeless students to identify themselves during 

enrollment. Non-McKinney districts also use school social workers, counselors, teachers, and nurses to 

7
identify homeless students who come to their attention because of behavioral, health, academic, or other 

needs. 

Transportation to School

Most McKinney districts cannot cover the high costs of transporting students with their relatively

small subgrants. Consequently, they are forced to seek other funding or limit their transportation 

services. Liaisons noted that occasionally neighboring districts refuse to pay for transporting students 

across district lines. Often in these situations, it is not clear who is required to pay for transportation, the 

district in which the student resides or that in which the student attends school. Because state 

coordinators have limited time to interact with districts, liaisons often resolve these issues themselves. 

Furthermore, in these situations, if non-McKinney districts surround the McKinney district, coordinators 

note that the McKinney district most often ends up paying for the student’s transportation. In general, 

nonsubgrantee districts did not discuss the McKinney Act provision that requires districts to continue the 

child’s or youth’s education in the school of origin. 

Before- and After-School Activities

Several of the subgrantee districts visited supplement homeless children's instructional programs 

with before- or after-school tutoring by teachers or volunteers from the community. Offered in schools 

and shelters as well as libraries and other community areas, these sessions provide homeless children oneto-one homework or other instructional assistance from a school. At the sites visited, before- and afterschool programs usually took place in shelters, although schools, libraries, and other organizations also 

offer them. 

Some nonsubgrantee districts also sponsor before- and after-school programs for homeless 

children and youth. After-school programs take place in schools, residential shelters, and community

centers and feature help with homework, one-to-one tutoring, or other kinds of instructional assistance. 

However, transportation problems in some nonsubgrantee districts prevent these programs from reaching 

more than a limited number of homeless students. In general, shelter-based students are more likely to 

have access to such services. 

8
Parent Involvement

In general, the subgrantee and nonsubgrantee districts in our study offer few services to the 

parents or guardians of homeless students. Some host monthly meetings with parents, while others send 

materials for parents to schools or offer occasional workshops. 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training

Most of the seven McKinney subgrant projects visited noted the importance of raising school 

staff awareness of the needs of homeless students. Districts send information to schools about how to 

recognize and meet the needs of homeless children and youth. Some sites go beyond disseminating 

materials to providing professional development and training. 

The vast majority of state coordinators reported that they conduct awareness-raising activities, for 

employees of nonsubgrantee districts and, to a lesser extent, for school staff and community

representatives from these districts. However, most of the nonsubgrantee districts visited do not conduct 

such sessions for either staff or parents, despite the fact that a few respondents mentioned that a lack of 

sensitivity among school staff was a challenge that homeless students faced at school. 

The infrequency of awareness raising and sensitivity training in nonsubgrantee districts can be 

attributed in part to their relatively small homeless student populations and a lack of resources. 

Nevertheless, a small number of nonsubgrantee districts did overcome resource challenges and manage to 

sponsor awareness-raising activities, if only to a limited extent. In general, however, lack of awareness is 

a problem, and few practitioners and parents are aware of the rights of homeless students. This lack of 

awareness leads to a failure to enforce the McKinney Act provisions. 

Coordination and Collaboration Among Local Social Service Providers

Most subgrantee districts visited have done a good job of setting up communication channels 

between school officials and shelter providers for the purpose of identifying and placing homeless 

children in school. Some districts also coordinate services and collaborate with agencies serving 

homeless children and youth. 

Respondents from nonsubgrantee districts reported that school officials communicate with local 

service providers on an as-needed basis, and that, in most cases, social workers, teachers, and principals 

are the primary links to homeless students and their families. However, local service providers participate 

in some sort of facilitating structure -- be it a network, coalition, or other vehicle for collaboration. The 

9
existence of such structures suggests that even in the absence of McKinney dollars, local communities can 

rise to the challenge of ensuring that the educational, health, and economic needs of homeless families are 

addressed. 

Data Collection, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Data collection varied widely across the sites. Most districts receiving a subgrant provide an 

“unduplicated count” of homeless students to its state department of education. Some subgrant districts 

do more, collecting data on the ethnicity of participants, the percent of identified students or families 

served, participation in services or activities by parents as well as students, student attendance, and 

student academic achievement. Often the kind and amount of data collected depend on the district’s

capacity to maintain data of any sort; it is difficult for districts that cannot easily access a student database 

to collect and maintain data on homeless students. 

States differ in the manner and frequency with which they monitor subgrants. Some districts 

submit monitoring reports to the state that include information about the number of homeless children and 

youth and the programs and services the district provides to them. Other districts receive monitoring 

visits from the state; one district noted that this occurs twice yearly while another reported a visit every

other year. A few subgrantees said that they were not monitored by the state. 

10
INTRODUCTION

The 1987 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act was enacted to confront the problems 

associated with homelessness in the United States. The act was amended in 1990 and 1994. Subtitle VIIB of the act, as amended in 1994, mandates state action to ensure that homeless children and youth have 

equal access to the same, free, and appropriate public education as their nonhomeless counterparts. The 

1994 amendments to the McKinney Act provide local educational authorities with increased flexibility in 

the use of funds, specify the rights of homeless preschoolers to a free and appropriate public preschool 

education, give parents of homeless children and youth a greater voice regarding their children’s school 

placement, and require educational authorities to coordinate with housing authorities. In FY 1998 and FY 

1999, Congress appropriated $28.8 million to the McKinney program and stipulated that no state 

appropriation would be less than $100,000. 

Under Section 103(a) of the McKinney Act, children and youth are defined as “homeless” if they

lack “a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence,” or if their primary nighttime residence is (1) a 

supervised shelter (e.g., welfare hotel, congregate shelter, runaway shelter, or transitional housing for 

people with mental illness) designed to provide temporary accommodations; (2) an institution (other than 

a jail or prison) that provides temporary accommodations for people who are intended to be 

institutionalized; or (3) a place that has not been designed for, or been ordinarily used as, sleeping 

accommodations for people. Other categories of children and youth such as migratory children, those 

living in foster care, children of “doubled-up families” who share a living space, and those who live in 

trailer parks or camping areas may or may not be classified as homeless. States can assess cases on an 

individual basis, using such criteria as whether these living arrangements are voluntary.

The provisions of Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney Act are broad and stipulate that (1) all 

homeless children and youth have a right to the same, free, and appropriate public education as other 

children and youth; (2) states must review and revise residency laws and “other laws, regulations, 

practices, or policies that may act as a barrier to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school of 

homeless children and homeless youth;” (3) students must not be separated from the mainstream school 

environment because of being homeless; and (4) homeless students should have access to education 

services to enable them to meet the same challenging student performance standards to which all students 

are held (McKinney Act, Section 721). 

The McKinney Education Program for Homeless Children and Youth awards grants to state 

education agencies (SEAs) to provide services to homeless children and youth, to establish an Office of 

Coordinator of Education of Homeless Children and Youth, and to award subgrants to local education 

agencies (LEAs) to help homeless children and youth enroll in, attend, and succeed in school. The Office 

11
of Coordinator prepares and implements a state plan describing how the state will provide for the 

education of homeless children and youth. State coordinators are responsible for: (1) identifying 

homeless children and youth; (2) assessing their special needs; (3) facilitating coordination between SEAs 

and LEAs; and (4) coordinating with other education and child development programs to improve the 

provision of comprehensive services to homeless children and youth. 

In addition, the state coordinator is required to gather reliable, valid, and comprehensive 

information on the nature and extent of the problems homeless children and youth have in gaining access 

to public preschools and elementary and secondary schools. Under the law, the state coordinator is 

responsible for estimating the number of homeless children and youth in the state and the number being 

served with McKinney funds. 

To receive McKinney subgrants, LEAs apply to the state. States award subgrants on the basis of 

need, determined primarily by the number of homeless children and youth enrolled in the LEA and the 

ability of the LEA to meet the needs of this population. However, each LEA in the state -- regardless of 

whether it receives a McKinney subgrant -- has responsibilities under the Act. 

In 1995, Policy Studies Associates (PSA) completed an evaluation of the McKinney program, 

although data were collected prior to the 1994 reauthorization. That study surveyed state coordinators 

and conducted site visits to a sample of six SEAs and eight local school districts. The 1995 study found 

that states had revised their laws, regulations, and policies to improve access to education. States 

awarded almost three-quarters of their funds to subgrant projects, which supported a variety of activities, 

including before- and after-school programs, awareness raising and sensitivity training, transportation, 

and identification and school placement of homeless children. Yet, despite these successes, many

challenges remained. For example, though access to school had improved significantly, access to specific 

educational services (e.g., gifted and talented programs) remained a problem for a large proportion of 

homeless children and youth. Another barrier to access concerned guardianship and immunization 

requirements. Though important for health and safety, guardianship and immunization requirements were 

often at variance with efforts to ensure access. Yet another significant barrier was that states and districts 

had few resources to address homeless youths’ transportation needs, particularly when transportation 

across district lines was at issue. Finally, concerns about liability and safety led some secondary schools 

to refuse to admit homeless youth altogether. 

The current study, conducted under a contract with the Planning and Evaluation Service of the 

U.S. Department of Education (ED), has evaluated state and local efforts to serve the educational needs of 

homeless children and youth and has identified barriers that affect these students’ enrollment, attendance, 

and school success. This study, a follow-up study to one completed in 1995, describes and analyzes four 

important areas of state and local activity: (1) the changes in education and services to homeless children 

12
and youth under the reauthorized McKinney Act; (2) the services and activities of the state Office of the 

Coordinator of Education of Homeless Children and Youth, an office that the McKinney Act established 

in each state; (3) the McKinney Act subgrant award process, and how LEAs with McKinney subgrants 

supplement the services available to homeless children and youth as well as remove the barriers to their 

enrollment and success in school; and (4) the establishment of programs and policies for homeless 

students in LEAs that do not receive McKinney subgrants. 

Overview of the Study Design 

The 1995 evaluation of the McKinney Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

compiled baseline information on the status of education for homeless children and youth. Since the data 

for that evaluation were collected and analyzed, the program has been reauthorized as part of the 

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. The scope of legislative changes affecting homeless children 

and youth makes it important to take another careful look to examine how schools, districts, and states are 

(1) helping the children and youth served by the McKinney Act enroll in and attend school and (2) 

helping those students succeed academically once they have arrived at school. 

Among other new provisions, the reauthorized program calls for increased coordination among 

federal programs (including Title I, special education, and Head Start programs) at state and local levels 

to ensure that homeless children and youth receive an appropriate public education. State McKinney Act 

coordinators also are directed to take the lead in fostering coordination among state and local agencies, 

including housing and human services as well as education agencies. According to changes to the Title I 

program under the Improving America’s Schools Act, homeless children are automatically eligible for 

Title I services. Title I, the largest federal K-12 program, provides extra funding to school districts based 

on poverty levels to provide supplemental academic assistance to low-performing students. 

This study has investigated (1) the extent to which states have successfully removed the barriers 

that impede homeless students’ access to a free, appropriate education, (2) how states and school districts 

use McKinney Act funds to address the educational needs of homeless children and youth, and (3) how 

nonsubgrantee school districts comply with the McKinney Act in the absence of federal funding. Specific 

questions include the following: 

• How have state or local laws, regulations, programs, or policies affecting the education of 

homeless children and youth changed? What types of education programs do homeless 

children and youth have the most difficulty accessing? What efforts has the Office of the 

Coordinator in each state made to coordinate services and increase linkages and 

communication among education and noneducation agencies and organizations that serve 

homeless people, particularly homeless children and youth? What have state 

13
coordinators done to support local school districts in their efforts to serve the educational 

needs of homeless children and youth? 

• To what extent have states and selected school districts successfully removed the barriers 

to the enrollment of homeless children and youth in school? What state policies and 

practices still impede school access, attendance, and success for homeless children and 

youth? What do representatives of states recommend as ways to better meet the needs of 

homeless children and youth?

Data Collection 

Data for this study were collected through a combination of methods, including a survey of all 

state coordinators of education of homeless children and youth and site visits to a sample of 14 local 

school districts, seven of which were McKinney subgrantees. 

Survey of State Coordinators of Education of Homeless Children and Youth

The survey, directed to state coordinators in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. territories2

 was conducted by telephone in the summer of 1998. The survey gathered 

information from state coordinators about state policies and procedures for the education of homeless 

children and youth. Information was also gathered on state coordinators’ efforts to: 

(1) identify and place homeless children and youth, (2) identify homeless children’s educational needs, 

(3) coordinate and collaborate with other social service agencies working with the homeless population, 

(4) provide support to LEAs serving homeless children and youth, and (5) involve homeless parents in the 

education of their children. Fifty-one state coordinators3

 completed the survey -- a response rate of 95 

percent. 

Site Visits

To provide illustrative examples of trends that emerged from the nationally representative survey

data, PSA conducted site visits to 14 school districts, seven of which were McKinney subgrantees, 

between October 1998 and February 1999. The visits featured interviews with district officials, district 

 

2

 Throughout the report, all these will be referred to as “states.”

3

 Homeless coordinators from the following states and territories did not respond to the survey: Alabama, 

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Palau. 

14
liaisons for homelessness issues, school principals and teachers, and other local social service providers; 

the study team also visited schools and shelters serving homeless children and youth. 

Site selection was based on recommendations from a technical work group and the need to 

achieve some distribution among the following demographic variables: geographic region, estimated 

population of homeless children and youth, level of project funding, and size of district or state. 

Study of Local Implementation of Federal Programs

 According to data collected between November 1998 and January 1999 from a national 

representative sample of districts in a study of local implementation of federal programs, 77 percent of all 

districts nationwide were not aware of having homeless children and youth in their district. Due to this 

lack of awareness, data from the implementation study were not included in the report. 

Organization of This Report 

The remainder of this report is organized into four sections. The first addresses state policies, 

rules, and regulations affecting the enrollment, attendance, and success of homeless children and youth. 

The second section discusses the role of the state coordinator regarding identification, awareness-raising 

efforts, data collection, coordination and collaboration with the service-provider community, and support 

to local education agencies serving homeless children and youth. Next, the report focuses on the services 

provided to homeless children and youth through LEAs. Finally, it presents recommendations of state 

coordinators and policy implications. 

15
STATE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY RESPONSES TO 

THE McKINNEY ACT

In passing the McKinney Act, Congress recognized that many state, district, and school policies 

presented obstacles to school participation for homeless children and youth. The McKinney Act requires 

that states review and revise their attendance laws and “other laws, regulations, practices, or policies that 

may act as a barrier to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school of homeless children and homeless 

youth” (McKinney Act, Section 721). The 1995 evaluation of the McKinney Homeless Children and 

Youth program reported that states had successfully revised policies to eliminate enrollment barriers 

created by state residency and school records requirements. However, in the 1998 survey, many

coordinators reported difficulties resolving barriers posed by transportation, guardianship, and 

immunization requirements. This follow-up evaluation sought to explore states’ responses to these and 

other barriers. 

Consistent with the findings of the 1995 evaluation, interviews with state coordinators in 1998 

revealed that, with few exceptions, states have continued to review and revise their laws, regulations, and 

policies to remove obstacles to the education of homeless children and youth. Many states have changed 

their laws, creating special statutes for homeless children and youth or revised their laws in such a way

that policies no longer prevent homeless children and youth from enrolling in school. In some cases, a 

state’s policies were already sufficient to allow the enrollment of homeless children and youth. In other 

cases, states have relaxed the enforcement of certain policies -- for example, by encouraging districts to 

be lenient in applying enrollment policies to homeless children and youth. 

The survey of state coordinators confirmed that, although some states have successfully reduced 

many of the legislative barriers to enrollment posed by state policies on transportation, guardianship, and 

immunization, these areas still emerged as difficult. Since 1994, the number of state coordinators 

reporting that transportation and immunization were barriers to school enrollment for homeless children 

and youth dropped by approximately 50 percent. Table 1 compares state coordinators’ responses from

the 1994 and 1998 surveys. 

16
Table 1. State policies as barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth, as reported by

state coordinators* 

Which state policies still pose barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth?

Number of State Coordinators Reporting 

 Policies as Barriers 

1994 1998

Transportation 

Legal guardianship requirements 

30 18 

15 13 

Immunization requirements 15 6 

* N=51 

Table reads: When asked, ”How did your state change its laws, regulations, or practices since 1994 to eliminate transportation

as a barrier to the enrollment of homeless children and youth?” 18 state coordinators reported that transportation still poses an 

enrollment barrier in their state. 

The following discussion addresses state legislative responses to the McKinney Act. We divided 

the discussion of issues into three sections: issues that still pose barriers to enrollment; new issues that 

present barriers for enrollment; and issues that are barriers to academic success for homeless children and 

youth. 

Unresolved Legislative and Policy Issues: Transportation, Guardianship, and 

Immunization Requirements as Barriers to School Enrollment 

 

The McKinney Act specifically calls on states to remove enrollment barriers for homeless 

children and youth created by state policies. While state coordinators reported improved success since 

1994 in revising state policies to eliminate barriers, many coordinators still reported difficulties resolving 

barriers posed by transportation, legal guardianship, and immunization requirements. Transportation 

barriers have been difficult to overcome because transportation depends heavily on local district 

resources. To ensure the safety and welfare of children and to protect themselves from liability and overenrollment, schools require a parent’s permission for many enrollment and education decisions, as well as 

documentation that students’ immunizations are up-to-date. 

17
Transportation

Transportation remains the most prominent enrollment barrier for homeless children and youth, 

although substantial progress has been made in this area. In 1994, 30 state coordinators identified 

transportation as a barrier, compared to 18 in 1998. Between 1994 and 1998, 10 states either created state 

laws, made efforts to enforce state laws, or relaxed enforcement of state laws to eliminate this barrier. In 

addition, recognizing the magnitude of the transportation problem, almost half of states provided 

additional funds -- either McKinney, other federal, or state funds -- to support districts’ transportation 

efforts on behalf of homeless students. Survey data suggest that McKinney districts are more successful 

than non-McKinney districts in leveraging funding from outside sources to cover transportation costs. 

For example, state coordinators in 33 states said that the McKinney districts in their states relied on 

funding from either federal programs, private sources, or other sources to finance transportation for 

homeless children and youth, compared to state coordinators in 25 states speaking of their non-McKinney

districts. Table 2 describes these finding in more detail. 

Three factors combine to make school transportation a difficult problem for states to resolve 

through laws and regulations. First, school transportation is primarily a local issue. Second, the 

provision of transportation for homeless children and youth often requires the infusion of significant and 

new resources, and these can be hard to locate. Finally, even if policies and resources can be located to 

provide transportation, the other survival needs of homeless families often make the logistics of 

transportation difficult. That is, when a family moves to find food or shelter, the proximity of the shelter 

site to educational transportation services is usually not the family’s primary concern. Data collected 

during our site visits confirm that the transportation of homeless students to their schools of origin is an 

ongoing challenge for districts, due to high costs, scheduling problems complicated by students’ mobility, 

and questions about district responsibility for transporting students. 

18
Table 2. State funding for transporting homeless children and youth to school, as reported by state 

coordinators* 

In your state, who funds transportation to school for homeless children and youth? 

Number of State Coordinators Reporting by Type of District

McKinney Nonsubgrantee

LEA 43 40

McKinney grant 34 2 

SEA 20 20

Other federal sources 12 10 

Private sources 12 8 

Other 9 7

* N=51 

Table reads: Forty-three state coordinators reported that local education agencies in their state are a funding source to 

transport homeless children and youth to school in McKinney districts.

Guardianship Requirements

Although the number of state coordinators reporting that guardianship requirements pose a 

problem for homeless children and youth remained almost constant between 1994 and 1998, almost onequarter of respondents did report that their states took steps to eliminate this barrier. In 1998, 13 state 

coordinators, compared to 15 in 1995, reported that state requirements for legal guardianship still pose a 

barrier to the enrollment of homeless children and youth. However, 12 states either changed existing 

laws, created new ones, enforced existing laws, or relaxed state laws to assist homeless students. 

The 1995 evaluation revealed several concerns about guardianship policies, which emerged again 

during this study. Schools and other agencies remain apprehensive about eliminating guardianship 

requirements because of liability questions and because of fears that nonhomeless students would abuse 

the policies to enroll in schools with popular academic or extracurricular activities. The issue of legal 

guardianship, however, was not prominent during site visit discussions with local liaisons, social workers, 

and other staff members. These respondents reported that guardianship was seldom a barrier to homeless 

students’ enrollment. 

19
Immunization Requirements

Since 1994, states have made the most progress in eliminating barriers to enrollment to school for 

homeless children and youth in the area of immunizations. According to the survey, only six state 

coordinators identified immunization requirements as a barrier, compared to 15 in 1994. Some

coordinators explained that immunization requirements were difficult to eliminate because state policies 

follow the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and seek to provide a safe and healthy

learning environment for all students. In 1998, one-quarter of state coordinators reported that their states 

made changes to laws or regulations to eliminate immunization requirements as barriers to the enrollment 

of homeless children and youth in school. Since 1994, 12 states either created a system to provide 

immunizations to homeless students, created new state laws or regulations, or changed existing laws or 

regulations. In addition, 10 coordinators reported state efforts to either enforce or relax existing laws in 

this area. Successful strategies for minimizing this barrier include providing immunizations on school 

sites, coordinating with a local health agency, or verifying immunization records by telephone. 

Survey results suggest that there is little difference between McKinney and non-McKinney

districts in their immunization requirements for homeless students, although McKinney districts were 

more likely than their nonsubgrantee counterparts to make special allowances for the homeless. For 

example, state coordinators in 24 states reported that McKinney districts in their states made special 

allowances for homeless students to enroll in school without delay, compared to non-McKinney districts 

in 19 states. Coordinators in 10 additional states noted that both their McKinney and non-McKinney

districts provided either homeless students or all students with immunizations so that they could enroll in 

school without delay. Respondents in approximately the same number of states said that their McKinney

and non-McKinney districts enroll students regardless of their immunization status. Table 3 outlines 

these findings. 

20
Table 3. State immunization requirements for school enrollment, as reported by state coordinators* 

In your state, what best characterizes the current circumstances for most school districts regarding 

immunization requirements for school enrollment? 

Number of State Coordinators

Reporting by Type of District

McKinney Nonsubgrantee

Special allowances have been made to enable homeless children and youth 

to enroll in school without delay, but they must be immunized within a 

certain period of time 

19 15 

All students can enroll in school regardless of their immunization status 11 10 

All students are provided with immunizations, if necessary, so that they

may enroll in school without delay 7 9 

Homeless children and youth are provided with the necessary

immunizations (e.g., through a referral) so that they may enroll in school

without delay

3 1 

All students must be immunized before they can enroll in school, and 

homeless children and youth may be delayed from enrolling as a result 5 7 

Special allowances have been made to enable homeless children and youth 

to enroll in school regardless of their immunization status 5 4 

* N=51 

Table reads: Nineteen state coordinators reported that school districts in their state that have McKinney grants have made 

special allowances to enable homeless children and youth to enroll in school without delay, but they must be immunized within a

certain period of time; nine coordinators said this for nonsubgrantee districts. 

Remaining Legal Barriers: Attendance Policies and Secondary School Credit 

Accrual for Homeless Youth

During the follow-up study, the problems of attendance and secondary school credit accrual 

emerged as issues for homeless youth. In general, state or district policies mandate a minimum number of 

days a student must attend school to stay enrolled, be promoted to the next grade, and earn a high school 

diploma. For homeless youth who are unable to find stable shelter, attendance policies pose a barrier to 

enrollment and completion of high school. 

21
During site visit interviews, secondary school staff in some districts reported that attendance 

policies prevented homeless youth from remaining in school. One school district limits the number of 

unexcused absences and tardiness to 10 per semester. Once a student has exceeded the number of 

unexcused absences, the youth is denied credit for the course missed, expelled from school, or sent to an 

alternative school. If the youth is expelled, he or she does not receive any credit for the semester or 

school year. School staff from this district said that expulsion and credit denial are harsh penalties for 

homeless youth who need special consideration. 

School staff from other districts also mentioned that it is difficult for homeless youth to earn 

credit in courses when they transfer during the middle of the school year. Because the school district of 

origin may have different requirements than the homeless youth’s current district and because record 

transfers are often very slow, placing homeless youth in the appropriate courses is often “guess work.” 

School counselors reported that teachers are not able to give homeless youth passing grades when they

have not earned the required number of points and a record of their previous grades does not exist. 

States and local school districts are looking for ways to address these issues for homeless youth. 

Some school districts, like Oakland Unified School District in California, are developing fast track 

programs through the adult education division. Others are relying on truant officers and school 

counselors to find solutions. In one school district, school officials report absent homeless youth to social 

services in hopes that the threat of losing social security benefits will spur their attendance. Experiencing 

success in removing other barriers for homeless children, local school districts are beginning to focus on 

those issues affecting the educational success of homeless youth. 

Barriers to School Success for Homeless Children and Youth 

Under the McKinney Act, states must to ensure that homeless students have access to educational 

services that enable them to meet the same challenging student performance standards to which all 

students are held. During the telephone survey, state coordinators were asked to indicate the current 

barriers to school success for homeless children and youth in their state. Additionally, state coordinators 

selected three areas of need that they would focus on if they had additional resources. 

The barrier to success for homeless children and youth cited by the majority of state coordinators 

was frequent mobility from school to school. Other barriers cited by state coordinators, in order of 

frequency, included the lack of awareness and sensitivity among school administrators and teachers to the 

specific educational needs of homeless children and youth, and homeless children and youth’s inability to 

complete school assignments due to the lack of an appropriate (e.g., quiet, has a desk) study area. 

22
More than half of state coordinators said they would fund extra educational services (e.g., 

Title I, special education, tutoring) and provide for students’ physical needs (e.g., food, clothing, health 

care, etc.) to reduce the barriers to success for homeless children and youth. In addition, about half of 

state coordinators indicated they would direct resources toward transportation, psychological services, 

and awareness raising and sensitivity training among school administrators, teachers, and students. 

23
STATE-LEVEL SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES 

TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF 

HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Under the McKinney Act, state coordinators are required to (1) gather data every three years on 

the problems homeless children and youth have gaining access to public preschool programs and to public 

elementary and secondary schools, the difficulties in identifying special needs, progress made by the SEA 

and LEAs in the state in addressing problems and difficulties, and the success of the program under 

Subtitle VII-B of the McKinney Act in ensuring that homeless children and youth enroll in, attend, and 

succeed in school; (2) develop and carry out the state plan for the Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth program; (3) facilitate coordination between and among agencies that provide services to homeless 

families; and (4) develop relationships and coordinate with relevant education, child development or 

preschool programs, and other providers of services to improve the provision of comprehensive services 

to homeless families. The strategies selected for completing these tasks vary across the states as 

individual coordinators establish different priorities and methods. 

The purpose of this chapter is to present information obtained from the state coordinators 

regarding their role in awareness-raising activities, data collection efforts, access to educational programs, 

and coordination and collaboration with the social-service-provider community. 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training

Significant differences exist among and within states in the level of community awareness of 

issues related to the definition, condition, needs, and rights of homeless children and youth. Two of the 

most frequent methods used by state coordinators for raising awareness among school personnel are 

distributing materials and conducting staff development meetings. When asked what steps are taken to 

ensure that districts are aware of changes to federal legislation, most state coordinators reported either 

disseminating materials such as legislation and policy guidelines to administrative and school staff or 

conducting awareness-raising activities such as workshops, conferences, and meetings for administrative 

staff in both McKinney subgrantee and nonsubgrantee districts. State coordinators take these same steps 

to increase awareness of homelessness issues among community agencies, particularly for McKinney

subgrantee districts. 

Twenty-one state coordinators in the 1998 survey reported that developing their state 

consolidated plan had raised awareness among state program administrators about the efforts of the 

McKinney-funded program to serve the needs of homeless children and youth. However, nine state 

24
coordinators during the same survey reported that some districts were not aware that they had a homeless 

population. 

Coordination and Collaboration 

Under the McKinney Act, each state must ensure that coordination occurs among the office of the 

coordinator and those school districts, agencies, and organizations that serve homeless children and 

youth. Accordingly, state coordinators indicated they coordinate and collaborate most with local 

education agencies, state government agencies, other offices within their state education agency, and 

homeless shelters. In the 1998 survey, nine state coordinators reported that coordinating or integrating 

the homeless program with other state programs was a problem because of limited time and programspecific agendas. Table 4 highlights these findings. 

State coordinators also reported that, by far, the two collaborative activities with the most impact 

were participating in an interagency task force or committee on homelessness and building programmatic 

linkages among various programs, agencies, or organizations working in the service of homeless children 

and youth. Sharing data systems on homeless populations with other programs, agencies, or 

organizations was also a common strategy for improving services to homeless children and youth, 

identified by 10 state coordinators as an activity that most improved program administration and services 

to homeless students. A few state coordinators reported that the following activities had a positive impact 

on improving program administration: (1) working together with other programs, agencies, or 

organizations on monitoring the extent to which the needs of homeless children and youth are being 

addressed; (2) reviewing state policies and regulations that affect homeless populations; and (3) 

identifying barriers that impede access to school. By promoting coordination and collaboration locally, 

state coordinators have enabled school districts and social service providers to stretch their available 

resources. 

25
Table 4. Coordination and collaboration for homeless children and youth, as reported by state 

coordinators* 

Consider the agencies and organizations with which your office has spent the most time collaborating 

and coordinating on issues related to serving the educational needs of homeless children and youth. 

Among the following, please choose the four organizations or agencies with which your office spent 

the most time collaborating and coordinating. 

Agencies and Organizations

Number of State 

Coordinators 

Reporting

Local education agencies 36 

Homeless shelters 25 

Other offices within your state education agency 25 

Other state government agencies 24 

State Coalition for the Homeless 19

Social service organizations 14 

Schools 12

State or local housing agencies 12 

Other local government agencies 7 

Other homeless advocacy organizations 6 

Institutions of higher education 4

Local businesses 1 

Other 8 

(Total exceeds 51 because respondents chose multiple answers.) 

* N=51 

Table reads: State coordinators most commonly reported that they coordinated and collaborated with local education agencies, 

homeless shelters, other offices within state education agencies, or other state government agencies. 

Access to Educational Programs and Services 

Although significant progress has been made in school access for homeless children and youth 

since the passage of the McKinney Act, a large proportion of homeless students still experience difficulty

in gaining access to needed educational services, such as services for youth, gifted and talented programs, 

26
and Head Start (Table 5). The survey revealed that the largest numbers of state coordinators rated the 

following programs as difficult for homeless children and youth in their state to access4

: 

• special education (33 state coordinators); 

• Head Start or other publicly funded preschool programs (29 coordinators); 

• gifted and talented programs (27 coordinators); 

• Even Start or other family literacy programs (26 coordinators); and 

• programs for students with limited English proficiency (25 coordinators). 

Consistent with the findings of the 1995 study, access to Title I was not identified as a top barrier 

by state coordinators in 1998, with 29 coordinators saying that homeless children and youth have no 

difficulty accessing Title I in their state. However, with 19 coordinators still citing difficulty in this area, 

homeless students continue to face some barriers accessing Title I services. Although states may have 

policies and laws that declare that access should not be denied, this does not guarantee that homeless 

children and youth get into the educational programs for which they are eligible. For example, homeless 

children may not be able to access publicly funded preschool programs that have reached full capacity, or 

they may enter a school midway through the year after all slots for programs have been assigned. Similar 

to the findings of the 1995 study, functions that affect special education placements include the length of 

time to obtain interdistrict record transfers, difficulty in scheduling assessments, and the high mobility of 

homeless students. 

 

4

 These data combine the “great difficulty” and “some difficulty” survey response categories.

27
Table 5. Access of homeless children and youth to education programs and services, as reported by state 

coordinators 

Consider the current access of homeless children and youth to educational services in your state. 

Indicate the degree to which eligible homeless children and youth have difficulty accessing each of the 

following educational services. 

Number of State Coordinators Reporting

Education Services 

Great 

Difficulty

Some 

Difficulty

No 

Difficulty NA

Don’t 

Know

Services for youth 14 9 9 8 8 

Head Start or other publicly

funded preschool programs 

10 19 16 0 5

Gifted and talented programs 10 17 8 2 12 

Even Start or other family

literacy programs 

8 18 18 0 5

Special education 5 28 14 0 3 

State compensatory education 3 10 21 10 6 

Programs for students with

limited English proficiency 

2 23 18 1 6

Title I basic program 2 17 29 1 1

Migrant education 1 8 23 4 14 

Free or reduced price school

lunch 

1 6 42 0 0

Other 2 1 1 6 1

* N=51 

Table reads: Nine state coordinators reported that homeless students in their states have no difficulty accessing services for

youth. 

Data Collection 

Under the McKinney Act, state coordinators are required to gather data on the problems homeless 

children and youth have gaining access to public preschool programs and to public elementary and 

secondary schools; the difficulties in identifying the special needs of children and youth; any progress 

made by the SEA and LEAs in the state in addressing such problems; and the success of the program in 

ensuring that homeless children and youth enroll in, attend, and succeed in school. In response to this 

provision, state coordinators were asked to indicate what kind of data were routinely collected from

school districts by the Office of the Coordinator for Education of Homeless Children and Youth. 

28
Considering data collected from both McKinney subgrantee and nonsubgrantee districts, state 

coordinators said they most often collected data on school enrollment. State coordinators also routinely

collected data on preschool-age children, difficulties or problems experienced by school districts in 

serving homeless students, and educational needs. Data on how homeless children and youth are 

performing in school (e.g., participation rates, retention rates, achievement) and on program effectiveness 

were the least routinely requested. Table 6 reports these findings in further detail. 

However, when considering data from McKinney subgrantee districts only, a different pattern 

emerges. As shown in Table 6, state coordinators collect considerably more data from McKinney

districts. For example, state coordinators collected data on enrollment, achievement, difficulties or 

problems experienced by school districts in serving homeless students, effectiveness of education 

programs and strategies, and educational needs. However, few state coordinators collect data on retention 

and participation rates from McKinney districts. 

29
Table 6. Data collection on homeless children and youth, as reported by state coordinators* 

What kind of data related to homeless children and youth does the Office of the Coordinator for 

Education of Homeless Children and Youth ask school districts in the state to provide periodically? 

SEA Currently Collects Data?

Type of Data

Yes, from 

ALL 

districts

Yes, from McKinney 

subgrantee districts 

only No Other

Enrollment 21 25 3 0

Data on preschool age children 19 16 10 4 

Educational needs 18 23 5 2 

Difficulties or problems experienced by

school districts in serving homeless 

students 

18 22 6 2

Attendance rates 14 15 20 0 

Participation rates in shelter or transitional 

schools 

13 14 16 5

Participation rates in education programs 

(Title I, special education, etc.) 

12 17 20 0

Effectiveness of education programs and 

strategies 

8 33 7 0

Retention rates 7 12 27 1 

Achievement 6 23 17 0 

LEA’s assessment of effectiveness of 

state or federally sponsored technical

assistance 

6 17 23 1

Participation in human service programs 3 15 29 1 

* N=51 

Table reads: Twenty-one state coordinators reported that they collect data on enrollment from all districts. 

Activities of Other State-Level Agencies and Organizations 

In most states, the Office of the Coordinator for Homeless Children and Youth collaborates a 

great deal with various state government departments, as well as with nongovernmental groups and 

organizations that operate at the state level. These various entities provide the coordinator with 

information on the needs and conditions of homeless children and youth in the state, help to establish the 

30
state coordinator’s agenda and activities, and facilitate the state coordinator’s efforts in other ways. The 

primary ways in which organizations provide assistance to state coordinators are through 

(1) professional development for educators and other school personnel to increase their awareness of the 

needs and rights of homeless children and youth, and (2) coordination between schools and agencies 

serving homeless children and youth. However, other organizations play a role in conducting 

assessments of the needs of homeless children and youth and providing before-school, after-school, and 

summer education programs. Table 7 describes state services provided by non-McKinney sources. By

collaborating with other agencies in these ways, state coordinators are able to carry out their McKinney

Act mandate to develop relationships and coordinate with relevant education, child development, or 

preschool programs and with other providers of services to improve the provision of comprehensive 

services to homeless families.

31
Table 7. State services provided to homeless children and youth other than through McKinney subgrants 

to LEAs, as reported by state coordinators* 

Consider the services that your office provided to homeless children and youth in your state, other than 

through McKinney grants to LEAs. Among the following, please indicate the five services that receive the most

support (e.g., time, money, etc.). 

State Services Provided to Homeless Children and Youth 

Other Than Through McKinney Grants to LEAs

Number of State 

Coordinators 

Reporting

Professional development for educators and other school personnel to increase their awareness 

of the needs and rights of homeless children and youth 

39 

Coordination between schools and agencies serving homeless children and youth 33 

Before-school, after-school, and summer education programs 21 

Assessments of the needs of homeless children and youth 20 

Education for homeless parents regarding the rights and resources available to their children 16 

Tutoring, remedial education, or other educational services 15 

School supplies 13 

Early childhood programs for homeless preschool-aged children 10 

Assessments of the eligibility of homeless children and youth for educational programs and

services 

9 

Transportation not otherwise provided 9 

Referrals for medical, mental, and other health services 7 

Tracking, obtaining, and transferring records necessary for school enrollment 7 

Other 10 

Total exceeds 51 because respondents chose multiple answers. 

* N=51 

Table reads: Thirty nine state coordinators reported their office provided professional development for educators and other 

school personnel to increase their awareness of the needs and rights of homeless children and youth. 

32
DISTRICT-LEVEL SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES

UNDER THE McKINNEY ACT

The McKinney Act authorizes state education agencies to award McKinney Act subgrants to 

local education agencies. The grants are intended to support districts’ efforts to ensure that homeless 

children and youth have access to the same, free, and appropriate education as nonhomeless children and 

youth, and to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth. 

Subgrantees may use the funds for implementing professional development activities around specific 

problems in the education of homeless children and youth; tutoring; providing supplemental instruction or 

enriched educational services; providing before-school, after-school, and summer programs; mentoring; 

expediting evaluations for programs and services; providing referrals for medical, dental, mental, and 

other health services; educating and training parents of homeless children and youth; purchasing school 

supplies; and undertaking coordination activities. 

Drawing on data from the survey of 51 state coordinators of homeless education and site visits to 

14 school districts, we describe the McKinney Act subgrant award process and discuss how school 

districts organize project administration and services in their efforts to serve homeless children and youth. 

Awarding McKinney Subgrants to Districts

School districts seeking McKinney funds apply to the state, which awards subgrants directly, 

based on the needs of the district’s homeless population. Relatively small numbers of districts in each 

state apply for and receive McKinney dollars; program funds are limited; and most states prefer to 

concentrate their awards in a few districts rather than spreading them throughout the state. In most states, 

McKinney subgrants are awarded on a competitive basis. According to the survey of state coordinators, 

states awarded an average of eight new subgrants and five continuation subgrants in 1997-98, which is 

unchanged since the 1993-94 school year. Table 8 outlines the number of subgrants awarded in each 

state. In addition, state coordinators reported the following about subgrants made for the 1997-98 year: 

• Nationwide, 602 subgrants were awarded in 1997-98. Of these, 357 were new subgrants 

and 245 were continuation subgrants (grants awarded in previous years that have not 

expired). 

• The average overall amount of McKinney funds awarded to all subgrants within a state, 

including continuation subgrants, was $433,337. However, states ranged greatly in this 

allocation, with Texas awarding a high of approximately $2.5 million and America 

Samoa awarding a low of $5,744. Similarly, the range in average subgrant allocation to 

33
each district was wide, with a high of $127,700 per subgrant in Texas and a low of 

$1,350 per subgrant in Utah. 

• The largest number of subgrants were made to urban districts, with the remainder divided 

among suburban districts, small towns that are not part of a metropolitan area, and 

rural/farming districts. 

Table 8. State allocation of McKinney program funds, 1997-98 

State 

State McKinney 

Grant 

(in Dollars) 

Total Number of 

Districts 

Number of New

Subgrants 

Number of 

Continuation 

Subgrants 

Alabama*

Alaska $50,000 53 0 7

Arizona 383,000 300 0 8

Arkansas 242,859 311 3 13

California 2,200,000 1,000 + 27 0

Colorado 185,184 176 0 7

Connecticut*

Delaware 60,000 19 0 3

District Of Columbia* 

Florida 1,094,822 67 2 14

Georgia 579,898 180 2 23

Hawaii n/a 1 n/a n/a

Idaho 56,565 110 8 0

Illinois 962,000 898 19 0

Indiana 309,500 298 10 0

Iowa 160,000 377 2 6

Kansas 180,000 304 6 0

Kentucky 378,000 176 0 11

Louisiana 550,000 66 0 10

Maine 80,000 187 2 0

Massachusetts 486,562 330 0 12

Michigan 900,000 600 19 18

Minnesota 243,000 391 10 0

Mississippi 413,000 154 36 0

Missouri 450,000 525 10 0

Montana 50,000 348 1 2

Nebraska 7,297 640 4 0

Nevada 50,000 17 6 1

New Hampshire $74,000 5 1 3 

New Jersey 408,877 594 7 0 

New Mexico 160,840 89 9 0 

New York 2,243,636 706 9 42 

34
Table 8. State allocation of McKinney program funds, 1997-98 

State 

State McKinney 

Grant 

(in Dollars) 

Total Number of 

Districts 

Number of New

Subgrants 

Number of 

Continuation 

Subgrants 

North Carolina 429,124 117 14 5 

North Dakota 50,000 230 5 0 

Ohio 961,000 611 0 11

Oklahoma 287,000 542 0 7

Oregon 194,000 199 16 1

Pennsylvania 1,098,866 500 13 0

Rhode Island* 

South Carolina 362,250 99 12 12 

South Dakota 67,200 177 0 2 

Tennessee 544,655 138 11 0

Texas 2,533,835 1050 5 15

Utah 49,955 40 25 12

Vermont 75,000 60 3 0

Virginia 286,000 134 14 n/a

Washington 316,490 296 0 10

West Virginia 183,299 55 24 0 

Wisconsin 350,000 426 9 0

Wyoming 55,615 48 2 1

American Samoa 5,744 1 1 1 

BIA 100,000 88 4 2

Puerto Rico n/a 101 n/a n/a 

Virgin Islands n/a 2 n/a n/a 

Source: U.S. Department of Education 

* States that did not participate in survey of state coordinators. 

When selecting applications for funding, state coordinators reported that they consider the quality

of a proposed project, the number of homeless children and youth in the district, and the severity of unmet 

needs. Coordinators were least likely to take into consideration the concentration or proportion of 

homeless children and youth in the district. 

Thirty-eight percent of state coordinators reported that there has been a change in how 

subgrantees spend McKinney funds locally since the 1994 reauthorization. They noted an increased 

emphasis on direct educational services for homeless children and youth and an increased focus on access 

to preschool, working with families, and collaborative efforts. 

District Services and Activities Under the McKinney Act

35
Districts provide an array of services and activities in an effort to provide homeless children and 

youth with a free and appropriate education. On a basic level, they usually work to identify homeless 

students, place them in school, and provide them with transportation to school. To enhance the education 

of homeless students, districts sometimes offer before- and after-school programs, work to ensure that 

homeless students have access to other educational programs, and provide parent education. Districts also 

coordinate and collaborate with local social service providers. Finally, they work to increase knowledge 

about the education of homeless students by providing awareness-raising activities and sensitivity

training. 

Data collected from site visits indicate that districts with and without McKinney funds are finding 

ways to address at least some of the needs of homeless children and youth. However, LEAs with 

McKinney subgrants are better able than other districts to provide a broader range of educational and 

recreational services to homeless children and youth. All McKinney subgrantees we visited have 

identified a district-level staff person who is responsible for enrolling homeless students, establishing 

procedures for identification and placement of homeless children and youth, developing project 

guidelines, collaborating with local social service providers, evaluating the program, documenting 

services and activities, and disseminating information. Furthermore, McKinney districts are more likely

than their non-McKinney counterparts to (1) ensure that shelter-based homeless children and youth are 

identified, enrolled in school, and attending school; (2) provide professional development to district and 

school staff in order to increase the awareness of the rights and needs of homeless children and youth; (3) 

sponsor professional development activities that identify procedures to follow and services that are 

available; (4) sponsor after-school activities and programs for parents; and (5) collect data on the number 

of homeless children in the district and the types of services available. 

In contrast, LEAs that do not receive McKinney dollars must rely on funds from Title I and 

community organizations to support their efforts. In most of these districts, a central staff person to 

address the needs of homeless students does not exist. Instead, they rely on school staff (e.g., guidance 

counselors, nurses, social workers) to identify homeless students and provide individualized services on 

an as-needed basis. In addition, non-McKinney districts provide little professional development related to 

homelessness; enjoy few district-level collaborations among shelters and other service providers; and 

sponsor few after-school activities. Because services to homeless children and youth are not coordinated 

at the district level, state coordinators have to provide more leadership and information to nonsubgrantee 

districts so that they do not deny services to homeless children and youth. Most of the sites we visited did 

not have a district-wide definition of homeless. 

36
District Staffing of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

According to the survey of state coordinators, 3,874 districts nationwide -- both with and without 

subgrants -- have designated a liaison for homelessness issues. Although this is a decrease from the 

number of districts reported in 1994, it is encouraging to note that an additional 4,938 districts have 

designated a contact person for homelessness issues. Therefore, in total, 8,812 districts nationwide -- or 

66 percent -- have designated either a liaison or a contact person for homelessness issues. 

Subgrant project staffing varies among the seven local sites we visited. In some sites -- usually

those serving a small number of homeless children and youth -- one staff person performs the 

administrative and operational tasks required under the McKinney grant. In others, project administration 

is apportioned among several people. For example, in Salem-Keizer, Oregon, the Homeless Children and 

Families Program consists of the program coordinator, a youth outreach advocate, a children’s advocate, a 

family advocate, and an administrative assistant who is responsible for collecting and compiling data. 

Subgrants with several staff members must find creative ways to stretch their subgrant funds to cover 

positions. In every subgrant project in the site-visit sample, regardless of staff size or configuration, the 

liaison for homelessness education is the staff person who is responsible for the majority of project 

operations and administration. 

In a few smaller districts, liaisons divide their time between homelessness issues and other district 

responsibilities. However, other liaisons in the districts we visited worked full-time in that role. Whether 

working full-time or part-time on homelessness issues, all district liaisons in each site visited are 

responsible for enrolling homeless children and youth in school. Other responsibilities listed by liaisons, 

which varied greatly depending upon the size of the program, included coordinating with local social 

service providers, developing project guidelines and procedures, filing reports with the state, evaluating 

the program, arranging transportation for homeless students, disseminating information about 

homelessness to schools and the community, supervising staff and volunteers, coordinating program and 

special events, providing technical assistance to other districts, providing statewide leadership and 

advocacy, and working with parents of homeless children. 

37
Identification and School Placement

Most McKinney subgrantees devote time and resources to the task of identifying and placing 

homeless children and youth in school. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the district has encouraged schools to 

implement a support team strategy for homeless students. When a homeless child registers for school 

(which can occur at the school or at the district office), the school-based registrar contacts the student’s

teacher, the principal, a counselor, and the school nurse. The group operates as a team to coordinate 

services for the student. When necessary, the team convenes to discuss the issues of homeless students. 

Several school districts have taken creative steps to handle the large task of finding homeless 

students and registering them for school. For example: 

Cleveland Public Schools (Ohio) developed a phone-in voicemail system that allows shelter 

providers to enroll children in school over the phone. The providers call the 24-hour Helpline 

and respond to prompts that provide the necessary enrollment information to the school district. 

If there is information missing, the district will call other districts to request student records. 

According to shelter providers, district enrollment staff, and the liaison, this system has 

dramatically reduced the amount of time it takes to enroll a homeless student in school. 

Generally, students can attend school the day after a call is placed to the Helpline. 

Shelter providers play a crucial role in the identification and school placement of homeless 

students. At many shelters, providers direct all incoming families with school-age children to the 

liaison’s office for assistance with school-related matters. Liaisons noted the importance of shelter 

providers emphasizing school attendance; in several places liaisons depend upon the collaboration of 

shelter staff to see that homeless students enroll in school. In fact, in many shelters students must be 

enrolled in school within a brief number of days after arrival -- if their parents do not see to this, the 

family is not allowed to stay in the shelter. 

In two of the McKinney districts we visited, school enrollment is influenced by desegregation 

orders. In both districts, the desegregation order may prohibit homeless students from attending their 

school of origin5

 in an effort to maintain the proper ethnic composition. As a result of the desegregation 

orders, if space is not available in the school of origin or a nearby school, students are sent to another 

school within the district. 

In contrast to McKinney districts, the identification of homeless children and youth in nonMcKinney districts is generally not a systematic or formalized process, and most of the districts we 

visited rely on homeless families to identify themselves during enrollment or other in-take procedures. 

 

5

 To promote school success and continuity of learning environments, homeless students may stay enrolled in the 

school they were attending prior to becoming homeless. 

38
Districts also use school social workers, counselors, teachers, and nurses to identify homeless students 

who come to their attention because of behavioral, health, academic, or other problems. For example, one 

district issues an annual survey to school nurses that asks them to count the number of homeless students 

attending their particular school. A few districts we visited rely on shelters or other service providers to 

identify homeless students and ensure they receive appropriate school services. The following example 

demonstrates the crucial role local service providers can play in homeless students’ academic well-being: 

Building Blocks (Missouri) is an initiative of the Community in Partnership Family Center in 

Pattonville. Funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

program helps homeless children and youth access educational services and resources. A team of 

intervention specialists, advocates, and a school coordinator works to screen homeless students 

for special education services, facilitate the referral process for special education, advocate for 

students during individual education plan meetings, access resources such as eyeglasses and 

school supplies, work with parents to play an active role in their child’s education, and address 

issues related to transportation, immunization, and guardianship. 

The identification and school placement of homeless students in non-McKinney districts is 

complicated by the relatively small size of their homeless populations as compared to McKinney districts 

and the high mobility rates that characterize homeless populations. As one district administrator 

described the situation, “By the time we make the arrangements to help, the family is gone.” 

Transportation to School

As discussed earlier, state coordinators reported that transportation is the biggest barrier to school 

access for homeless children and youth. Most districts cannot cover the high costs of transporting 

students with their relatively small McKinney subgrants. Therefore, districts are forced to seek funding 

from other sources or offer limited transportation services. One district we visited provided transportation 

for homeless students only until the McKinney budget ran out, often in early spring. As a result, 

homeless students had to change schools to enroll in one where either an operating bus route already

existed or one they could walk to. In contrast: 

In St. Louis Public Schools (Missouri), the district covers the cost of transportation for homeless 

students, either through the McKinney grant or through general district transportation funds. The 

district transports an average of 956 homeless students each year. Middle and high school 

students receive bus passes for public transportation from the district, while elementary students 

are transported either in taxicabs or on school buses. The district requires that parents or 

guardians be advised about school options, that transportation agreements be reviewed every 20 

days, and that social workers and shelter staff monitor students’ attendance. In 1997-98, $50,000 

from the district’s $180,000 McKinney grant covered transportation costs, while the school 

district covered more than $300,000. 

39
Liaisons in more than one district expressed frustration with neighboring districts that 

occasionally refuse to pay for students to be transported across district lines. They note that it is not clear 

who is required to foot the bill -- the district in which the student resides or that in which the student 

attends school. State coordinators generally have limited daily interaction with districts; as a result, 

district liaisons or contacts often resolve these issues themselves. Furthermore, in these situations, if nonMcKinney districts surround the McKinney district, coordinators note that the McKinney district most 

often ends up paying for the student’s transportation. 

Respondents in only one nonsubgrantee district discussed the McKinney Act provision that 

requires districts to continue the child’s or youth’s education in the school of origin. In rare cases where 

transportation accommodations to homeless students’ school of origin are requested, this nonsubgrantee 

district usually arranges with a neighboring McKinney district -- one that hosts one of the few homeless 

shelters in the area -- to provide transportation to the student’s school of origin. During transition 

periods, the district will temporarily cover the costs of cabs or buses. The liaison explained that the 

district “does not feel economic pressures [to provide] transportation. It is not an economic issue, 

generally. Somehow it works out financially on a case-by-case basis. This is because homeless students 

who must be transported back [into our district] have luckily fallen into neighboring districts that can pick 

up the costs with their McKinney funds.” However, other respondents in this district suggested that 

transportation could be a barrier if a homeless student moved to another non-McKinney district. With 

neither district receiving special funding, they queried, “Who would ultimately be responsible?” 

Despite the great problems noted in the area of transportation, districts are making progress: in 

the previous evaluation, no district in the sample had successfully responded to the McKinney Act in 

returning homeless students to their school of origin across district lines. In the group of districts visited 

for this study, several had made substantial progress in this regard. For example, some school districts 

ensured that homeless students connected with existing school or public bus routes, while others went to 

great lengths to transport students to their school of origin, such as hiring taxicabs to transport younger 

students who could not ride public buses alone or students who did not live near existing school bus 

routes. 

According to state coordinators, LEA dollars are the primary means of funding transportation to 

school for homeless students in both subgrantee and nonsubgrantee districts. Coordinators reported that 

transportation was a barrier to school success, and almost one-quarter said that they would make directing 

resources to transport students to their schools of origin a top priority. 

Before- and After-School Activities

40
Several of the subgrantee districts we visited offer homeless children a supplemental instructional 

program that consists of before- or after-school tutoring sessions. Offered in schools and shelters as well 

as libraries and other community areas, these sessions provide homeless children one-to-one homework or 

other instructional assistance from a school teacher or volunteer tutor from the community. The 

following are some examples of the types of instructional services provided in McKinney districts: 

Cleveland Public Schools (Ohio) offers a tutoring program for homeless students at 14 sites 

around the district. The programs, which meet twice a week for two hours, are staffed by school 

district teachers who are paid school district wages for their work. When students enter the 

program they take a computerized assessment. Several weeks later they are given the assessment 

again to measure their progress. Copies of student assessment results are given to parents and 

teachers as well as kept at project sites. During the 1997-98 school year, the tutoring program

served 495 homeless children and youth. 

Little Rock Public Schools (Arkansas) provide after-school tutoring help for 20-50 homeless 

students at a school and a local college twice a week. A full-time education professor who 

volunteers her time to run the program and to recruit and train college students as tutors 

coordinates the program at Philander Smith College. The college donates space for the program. 

Students in grades K-6 are transported from a local shelter to participate in the program, during 

which they meet by grade level to work with the college tutors. 

Salem-Keizer School District (Oregon) provides services to homeless students at the Oregon 

Capitol Inn, where about 100 homeless students stay every night. In an effort to reach homeless 

students who live in the hotel, the school district rents two rooms at the hotel to serve as a 

community center. The center has a computer lab and a lending library and is staffed during the 

week. Staff members offer a variety of services and host different clubs for children and youth. 

The district program works with the hotel’s owner to ensure that all students attend school. 

Before the district opened the community center at the hotel, school attendance was 63 percent 

among students staying at the hotel. Once the center was opened and the partnership began, 

school attendance rose to its current 98 percent. 

At the sites visited, before- and after-school programs were much more likely to serve homeless 

children in shelters than those living doubled-up or in other situations. In addition, only a few sites we 

visited reported holding after-school tutoring sessions specifically focused on homeless youth. The 

following is one such site: 

Lincoln Public Schools (Nebraska) funds a tutor’s salary, supplies, and software for a tutoring 

program at the Freeway Youth Shelter. Tutoring sessions last for two hours and are held five 

times a week. Youth are assessed upon entering the program to determine what educational, 

social and life skills, or career exploration services are needed. The education tutor, in 

conjunction with a shelter staff member, is responsible for providing the needed services and for 

maintaining communication with each youth’s teachers and counselors. During the course of the 

1997-98 school year, 231 youth participated in the program. Youth stay at the Freeway Youth 

Shelter for an average of ten days. During that time, youth participate in an average of seven 

tutoring sessions. 

41
Despite the absence of McKinney funding at the district level, some nonsubgrantee districts also 

sponsor before- and after-school programs for homeless children and youth. After-school programs take 

place in schools, residential shelters, and community centers and feature homework assistance, one-to-one 

tutoring, or other kinds of instructional assistance. The following is an example of instructional services 

provided in nonsubgrantee districts: 

IPS 14, Indianapolis (Indiana) Originally a program exclusively for homeless students, the 

school’s after-school club program enables all students -- not just those who are homeless -- to 

participate in clubs for four afternoons each week. The program, funded by several community

partners and a grant to the school to cover students’ transportation costs, rotates students through 

three nine-week cycles. The cycles focus on building teamwork, preparing students for the state 

assessment, and preventing summer drop-off in academic skills. 

However, in other nonsubgrantee districts that offer before- and after-school programs, the programs 

reach a limited number of homeless students because of transportation issues. In general, shelter-based 

students are more likely to have access to such services. 

Improving the Access of Homeless Children and Youth to Educational Programs and Services

State coordinators reported that, more than other federal programs, homeless children and youth 

have some or great difficulty accessing gifted and talented programs, special education services, and Head 

Start or other publicly funded preschool programs. The subgrants in our study use a variety of strategies 

to ensure that homeless children and youth have access to educational programs and services. In SalemKeizer, some homeless children and youth have a district case manager who helps those children and their 

families access needed services and educational programs. Because staff members know these families 

well, they are more apt to learn about the children’s needs and help the family meet those needs. While 

this approach greatly improves the access of some homeless children and youth to educational programs 

and services, the high cost of such intensive services makes it prohibitive for every homeless student to 

have a district case manager. Another example is: 

Fargo Public Schools (North Dakota) uses some McKinney funds to pay the salary of a 

“tracker.” This tracker has very close contact with homeless families and provides materials such 

as school supplies, eyeglasses, and bus passes when necessary. She also assists in registering 

students for school (often contacting principals to determine which school is the most appropriate 

for the student) and has organized an after-school tutoring program at a local shelter. The tracker 

serves as the point person for principals, teachers, and counselors who want to communicate 

students’ needs. She often attends meetings with school staff. 

42
Several McKinney districts in the study hire social workers to help improve homeless students’

access to educational programs and services. The district coordinator in St. Louis noted that, “services to 

homeless children and youth work hand-in-glove with social work services.” In Cleveland, the program

for homeless students funds a part-time social worker and a part-time psychologist. The social worker 

ensures that families are getting all they can from social service agencies while the psychologist tests 

those students who may need special education placement. By employing its own psychologist to test 

children, the district ensures that homeless children who require special education are placed in programs 

within 14 days of being identified, a process that usually takes months. 

When asked, some district administrators in the sites we visited argued that homeless students 

have the same access to educational services and programs as any nonhomeless student. Most of the 

McKinney districts did not think that homeless students lacked access to Title I. In Title I schoolwide 

schools, which have proliferated since ESEA was reauthorized in 1994, homeless students automatically

have access to equal services as nonhomeless students, depending on their academic needs. However, 

some administrators noted that treating homeless children and youth as all students are treated is not 

always acting in their best interest. For example, programs with limited enrollment slots that tend to fill 

up at the beginning of the year are usually unable to serve homeless children who often arrive later in the 

year. 

Approximately one-half of state coordinators reported that homeless students in nonsubgrantee 

districts had equal access to educational services as their counterparts in subgrantee districts, although a 

significant number of coordinators admitted that they did not know if such access was granted equally to 

students. Because most respondents in the nonsubgrantee districts were unaware of the provisions of the 

McKinney Act, few make concerted efforts to ensure that homeless students have access to Title I, Head 

Start, and special education services, as called for in the 1994 reauthorization. However, it should be 

noted that in a couple of nonsubgrantee districts, Title I services are reserved specifically for early

childhood students, and in others, the schoolwide option makes all students automatically eligible for 

such services. 

In general, respondents in nonsubgrantee districts suggested that homeless students are eligible 

for any services available to the at-risk student population. According to a principal, “We use money to 

help children whom we perceive as needing assistance. We don’t care if they’re homeless or not.” 

Although respondents are reluctant to target homeless students for fear of labeling or stigmatizing them, 

encompassing homeless students in the general at-risk pool does not necessarily serve their best interests. 

For example, early childhood programs often fill up at the beginning of the school year, and the referral 

process for special education can be lengthy. One district administrator noted that in cases where 

homeless students require special education services, there is little communication with the student’s

43
previous school, and assessment of academic needs often has to be repeated, thus making the process 

longer than it needs to be. 

Parent Involvement

Most of the subgrantee districts in our study do not offer many services to the parents or 

guardians of homeless students. Some host monthly meetings with parents, while others send materials 

for parents to schools, or offer occasional workshops. However, several districts emphasize involving 

parents. 

Salem-Keizer Public Schools (Oregon) has two staff members who provide services to parents. 

The youth outreach advocate provides case management for some families, and the family

advocate offers training, activities, and case management. Services offered to parents include: 

life skills training, computer training, assistance with job searches, GED classes, and monthly

transportation to grocery and other stores. In the past, the district has provided hair cuts, flu 

shots, and bags of fruit to parents. The district also grants scholarships to parents who wish to 

take classes at the local community college. According to the district coordinator, activities for 

parents are planned based on their needs, and aim to increase their involvement in the program. 

In Cleveland Public Schools (Ohio), the district provides a “Mommy and Me” program for 

parents and their children below age 6. In the program, parents and their children meet 

individually with a district teacher who works with them to complete a “Family Facts Book,” 

which includes a picture of the participating child and basic facts about the children in the family

(health records, schools attended, social security numbers, and phone numbers of family

members, social service agencies, and emergency contacts). Participants are given a learning 

doll, made by volunteers, which parents use to teach their children about colors, shapes, and 

manipulating zippers and buttons. 

Most nonsubgrantee districts that we visited did not offer services specifically to the parents of 

homeless students. One exception is: 

Oakland Unified School District (California) Staff from the Office of Homeless Education 

sponsor semi-annual workshops for parents in local homeless shelters. The workshops, called 

“Conscious Parenting,” are designed to empower parents, help them navigate the school system, 

and identify ways that parents can encourage their children to succeed in school. 

Awareness Raising and Sensitivity Training

Among the seven McKinney subgrant projects we visited, most noted the importance of raising 

44
awareness among school staff. One coordinator for whom this has been a priority said, “The awareness 

level really improved. Because of information they have, people are much less likely to turn kids away.” 

Sites often send information to schools about how to recognize and meet the needs of homeless children 

and youth. Some sites go beyond disseminating materials to provide professional development and 

training. The coordinator in Salem-Keizer teaches lessons on homelessness at local elementary schools. 

In Little Rock, the liaison provides training to school secretaries and school-based registrars. Because 

these staff members are often the first that a homeless family will see, the district wants them to be 

sensitive to the needs of homeless families and informed about district services available to them. Another 

example is Cleveland Public Schools: 

Cleveland Public Schools’ (Ohio) subgrant program worked with the Cleveland Playhouse to 

produce a musical about the experiences of two teenagers who become homeless. The musical, 

called Shelter, enjoyed so much success as an educational tool that the subgrant program and the 

Playhouse converted the musical into a 30-minute video, for which the subgrant program wrote 

an accompanying curricular unit. The video has been used as a professional development tool 

with teachers both in their schools and at the Cleveland Playhouse. 

Despite their best efforts, liaisons are often unable to reach the number of school staff they would 

like to. According to one district administrator: 

The bigger the school is, the more difficult it is to get the staff in that building, from

administrators on down, to be responsive to the needs of all kids. That is really a 

challenge...They’re overwhelmed with so many different issues that a kid who’s homeless doesn’t

always rise to the priority he or she should. We only have one person following up in 50 schools 

-- it forces you to deal with people in large groups. We try to put in place procedures and 

guidelines to guide people’s behavior, but it doesn’t always happen. 

The vast majority of state coordinators reported that they conduct awareness-raising activities for 

staff from nonsubgrantee districts and, to a lesser extent, for school staff and community representatives 

from these districts. However, most of the nonsubgrantee districts we visited do not conduct such 

sessions for either school staff or parents, despite the fact that a few respondents mentioned that a lack of 

sensitivity among school staff was a challenge that homeless students faced at school. In one 

nonsubgrantee district, social service providers reported that principals periodically turn away homeless 

students trying to enroll in the school because they lack proof of residence. Respondents also suggested 

that while some teachers are extremely supportive and responsive to the needs of homeless students, 

others are not sensitive at all and “make life difficult” for homeless students. In another district, 

awareness of homeless students in general is minimal. According to a district administrator, “We are told 

to get them in school. People don’t really want to acknowledge that they [homeless students] exist.” 

The relative infrequency of awareness raising and sensitivity training in nonsubgrantee districts 

can be attributed in part to the relatively small homeless student populations and a lack of resources. 

45
Nevertheless, a small number of nonsubgrantee districts did overcome resource challenges and manage to 

sponsor awareness-raising activities, if only to a limited extent. For example, one nonsubgrantee district 

conducts in-services with school registrars to discuss intake procedures, which are outlined in the 

district’s policy on homeless students, while shelter providers in another district hold sessions with 

parents to inform them of their rights. In general, however, lack of awareness is a problem, and few 

practitioners and parents are aware of the rights of homeless students. This lack of awareness leads to a 

failure to enforce the McKinney Act provisions. 

Coordination and Collaboration Among Local Social Service Providers

Most subgrantee districts we visited have done a good job of setting up lines of communication 

among school officials and shelter providers for the identification and school placement of homeless 

children. Some districts, however, have gone beyond this basic approach to the tasks of coordinating 

services and collaborating with agencies serving homeless children and youth. The following are some

examples of subgrantee districts that have coordinated with other service providers and agencies to access 

additional resources and broaden the cluster of services available to homeless children and youth: 

In St. Louis Public Schools (Missouri), the district coordinator participates in the Homeless 

Network, an umbrella group for all of the service providers to the homeless in the area. The 

network conducts monthly focus groups and provides educational opportunities for homeless 

adults and children. Service providers note that the network helps reduce animosities, fosters 

better working relationships among agencies, fosters greater openness among staff, and ensures 

that families’ needs are better met, especially when they have multiple overlapping problems 

(e.g., substance abuse and domestic abuse). The district coordinator, who initiates meetings and 

provides in-service training for the network said, “there is a continuum of care built into the 

Network.” 

Tucson Public Schools (Arizona) supports nine Family Resource Wellness Centers that are 

located at or close to Title I schools. Though the district provides some McKinney funds as well 

as the buildings and electricity for the centers, they are largely supported by external funds. 

Local agencies collaborate with the district to offer a variety of services at the Wellness centers. 

One center that partners with a public health organization offers medical services; another uses 

McKinney funds to offer academic support and a job training program. The Wellness Centers 

have been in existence for six years. 

Unlike McKinney districts, respondents from nonsubgrantee districts reported that school 

officials communicate with local service providers on an as-needed basis, and that, in most cases, social 

workers, teachers, and principals are the primary links to homeless students and their families. Further, in 

most of the districts we visited, local service providers participate in some sort of facilitating structure -- 

be it a network, coalition, or other vehicle for collaboration. The existence of such structures suggests 

46
that even in the absence of McKinney dollars, local communities are rising to the challenge of ensuring 

that the educational, health, and economic needs of homeless families are addressed. 

Data Collection, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Collection of data varied widely across the sites we visited. Most subgrantees provide an 

“unduplicated count” of homeless students to its state department of education. Some subgrants go 

beyond this basic information to collect data on the ethnicity of participants, the percent of identified 

students or families served, participation in services or activities by parents as well as students, student 

attendance, and student academic achievement. Often the kind and amount of data collected depend on 

the district’s capacity to maintain data of any sort; it is difficult for districts that do not have an easily

accessed student database to collect and maintain data on homeless students. In other districts, a 

sophisticated district-wide electronic system can be tailored to allow students’ records to indicate their 

homelessness status, which leads to the ability to disaggregate all district data by homelessness status. 

For example, in the Little Rock school district, the liaison receives a list each month from the student 

assignment office of all homeless students that indicates their ethnic group, grade, school, gender, and 

living arrangement (e.g., shelter, doubled-up, etc.) However, in several other districts we visited, systems 

for keeping track of homeless students were manual and not tied into a districtwide data system. 

Most of the subgrants we visited were unaware of the McKinney Act requirements to track the 

academic achievement of homeless students. One liaison noted that collecting such data is complicated 

because neighboring districts do not use the same assessments. Another noted that while the program has 

the capability to review homeless students’ academic achievement, they do so on an individual basis 

when school staff indicate the need. In Little Rock, the coordinator receives a list of homeless students 

and their grades on a quarterly basis. 

Most subgrantees keep information on participation in the activities and services they offer. In 

Salem-Keizer, these data are kept on services provided to parents and students and disaggregated by age 

group and ethnicity. This enables the program in Salem-Keizer to review at the end of each year exactly

how many people from each age group participated in each activity or service they provided. 

District liaisons disagreed about the difficulty of collecting and reporting information on 

academic performance, enrollment levels, attendance rates, participation in federally funded education 

programs, and attendance in transitional schools, which are often located in shelters. While some noted 

that they have access to this information already, they felt it would be a difficult and time-consuming task 

to compile and report it. Districts differed in the kind of information to which they have access -- in one 

district, the liaison provided us with counts of homeless students participating in a variety of federally

47
funded education programs, in another the liaison did not have easy access to this information. One 

liaison explained, “Part of the problem is that we have no base to draw from...Given the mobility, all we 

know is the percent enrolled in school.” 

Subgrants differed in the manner and frequency in which they are monitored by the state. Some

districts submit monitoring reports to the state that include information about the number of homeless 

children and youth and the programs and services the district provides to them. Other districts receive 

monitoring visits from the state; one district noted that this occurs twice yearly while another reported a 

visit every other year. A few subgrants said that they were not monitored by the state. 

Liaisons reported great difficulty in evaluating their programs. According to the supervisor of 

one program: “One of the biggest challenges to us is being able to evaluate the effectiveness of what 

we’re doing.” Only two of the subgrants we visited evaluate their programs. One uses evaluation forms 

required by the state to assess needs and evaluate program activities. According to the liaison in SalemKeizer, “Every year the program randomly surveys parents, volunteers, agency personnel, and school 

teachers on our effectiveness. We use that information in our grant. For example, we learned concretely

that people needed more transportation, so we gave shelters more latitude with transportation vouchers. 

Longer case management services are a direct result of surveys.” 

Unlike McKinney districts, the nonsubgrantee districts we visited did not participate in data 

collection, monitoring, or evaluation. The one exception to this is Oakland, California, which collected 

teacher evaluations on homeless students who participated in the after-school tutoring program. 

Federal Support for District Programs for the Education of Homeless 

Children and Youth

The emphasis on coordination and collaboration in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act has had an impact on education programs for homeless children and youth. 

Before the reauthorization, the McKinney Act was the only legislation that specifically mentioned the 

needs of homeless students. That changed with the reauthorized Title I, which requires local education 

agencies to specify in their application for Title I funds how their Title I program will address the needs 

of homeless students. Liaisons spoke highly of this. According to one: 

We came late to knowing that we could use Title I dollars for homeless kids. We went to the 

state director of homeless education and asked for more money. She said, “No, but ask the Title I 

director.” We had a meeting with the Title I director and the state director of homeless education 

who reminded him of that obligation. She pointed out Title I legislation that authorized that...He 

did set aside some money...It’s been a God-send. We’ve been operating for all these years and 

48
didn’t know that we could access those funds to enhance what we’ve been doing. That has 

helped make our lives easier. 

Other federal programs in the subgrantee districts we visited also support programs for homeless students. 

Because of a school district’s consolidated plan, federal funds from Goals 2000 and the Safe and DrugFree Schools Program were used to provide after-school programming and other education services. 

However, subgrantees said they received more funds from Title I than from any other federal program

source. 

In most of the nonsubgrantee districts we visited, respondents did not report receiving funding 

from outside sources to serve homeless students. However, in two districts -- both former McKinney

subgrantees in which the homeless problem was recognized -- outside sources of funding were available. 

For example, Oakland Unified School District, which was a McKinney subgrantee between 1994 and 

1996, tapped into Title I funding, McKinney dollars awarded to the county office of education, and inkind support from a local philanthropic organization to sponsor its after-school program. Similarly, IPS 

14 in Indianapolis leveraged financial support from several community groups to operate its after-school 

program. In smaller or more rural districts where homelessness is not commonly recognized as a 

problem, the likelihood of leveraging non-McKinney dollars or other sources of support diminishes. One 

nonsubgrantee district is required by state law to reserve funds to serve homeless students: 

Reynolds School District (Oregon) is subject to a state law that requires every district to set 

aside part of their Title I, Part A funds to serve homeless students. This money, referred to as the 

Title IA set-aside, has increased awareness around the state about the educational needs of 

homeless students. Districts can generate their own set-aside amount based on the estimated cost 

of serving their homeless population, or they may use a state funding formula. Each district is 

required to estimate the number of homeless students it serves and come up with a program to 

meet their needs. 

49
RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

States and local school districts are continuing to work on breaking down barriers that impede 

school access, attendance, and success for homeless children and youth. Since the McKinney Act was 

enacted in 1987, most states and local school districts have reviewed and revised their laws, regulations, 

and policies to remove enrollment barriers caused by immunization and guardianship requirements, and 

more and more homeless students have gained access to school as a result. States and school districts are 

still struggling, however, to find ways to address transportation needs. They struggle largely because 

local school districts have limited resources. Other policies that act as barriers, such as school attendance 

and secondary credit accrual, have recently been identified. 

To address the educational needs of homeless children and youth, state and local school districts 

have provided a range of services and activities. In many states, the district personnel view the state 

coordinators as the primary source of information and authority on issues related to the education of 

homeless children and youth. Since the McKinney Act was passed, for example, state coordinators have 

provided staff development for school personnel to overcome the barriers to serving homeless children 

and youth. In addition, state coordinators help coordinate the activities of schools and agencies serving 

homeless children and youth, identify available services and resources, and communicate this information 

to those who need it. By promoting coordination and collaboration locally, states have enabled school 

districts and social service providers to stretch their available resources and thus to better serve homeless 

children and youth. 

As states and districts work to meet the educational needs of homeless children and youth, some

issues are particularly salient. In the following section, we discuss these issues in light of their 

implications for future policy decisions. First, we summarize the recommendations made by state 

coordinators in the national survey regarding ways to improve state and federal efforts to meet the 

educational needs of homeless children and youth. Second, we discuss policy implications based on our 

own interpretation of the data collected for this study. 

50
Recommendations of State Coordinators 

• Most state coordinators want clarification of the McKinney Act and federal laws as they

pertain to subgrant and nonsubgrantee districts. In particular, they would like specifics 

about guardianship, immunizations, transportation, and prekindergarten services. 

• Most state coordinators want the coordinators of all federal programs, especially 

Title I, to receive clear and concise directives about federal coordinators’ roles in 

educating homeless students. State coordinators believe that in order to improve access 

and services, other federal programs must reserve funds. 

• Several state coordinators believe the McKinney Act should have an established grace 

period that allows homeless children without the proper documentation to enroll in 

school without delay.

• Several state coordinators would welcome technical assistance on gathering data. 

• Some state coordinators suggest a longer award cycle for McKinney subgrants. A longer 

award cycle would allow districts to make continuous strides toward ensuring the 

enrollment and success of homeless children and youth. 

 

• Some state coordinators want the McKinney Act to require that states with homeless 

populations above some minimum number have a full-time state coordinator for 

homelessness issues. Part-time state coordinators, particularly those in states with large 

homeless populations, are often unable to fully meet all the demands of their position as 

defined by the act. 

• Some state coordinators suggest that the U.S. Department of Education develop a 

national campaign to increase awareness about the rights of homeless children and youth. 

One target of the campaign should be to improve homeless children and youth’s access to 

education in rural areas where the rate of identification is low. 

• A few state coordinators want access to networks and professional development at the 

SEA level. 

• Three state coordinators would welcome a tracking system similar to the one that is used 

for migrant students. 

• One state coordinator believes all states should get a local needs assessments to determine 

funding level for homeless children and youth. 

• One state coordinator suggests an increased research agenda on education issues related 

to homeless students to document information dissemination, data collection, 

identification, services, needs, and effective practices. 

Policy Implications 

51
52

Many homeless students still experience difficulty in gaining access to federal and state 

education programs, in part due to a lack of information on the district and school levels. In particular, 

homeless students face the most obstacles to participation in gifted and talented, Head Start, special 

education, and bilingual/ESL programs. State coordinators could do more to ensure that information 

about the rights of homeless students is communicated clearly to local school districts and schools. In 

addition, federal program guidelines could give further direction to local Head Start programs about how 

to accommodate homeless students when programs face waiting lists and limited space. 

While districts have made progress in transporting homeless students to their schools of origin, 

many students are not transported to their original schools because of high transportation costs and 

questions about responsibility. The transportation of homeless students, particularly young children, is 

an ongoing challenge. State coordinators could help ensure that districts understand their roles and 

responsibilities in meeting the McKinney Act’s school-of-origin provision, which has implications for 

students’ academic success, including enabling students to maintain credits earned and to avoid 

attendance problems. However, without additional resources, it would be impossible for districts to 

comply in all situations. 

Few states and districts disaggregate student achievement data by homelessness; family 

mobility both complicates and necessitates the collection of such data. Because methods for identifying 

homeless students are difficult and yield imperfect results, many districts do not attempt to label or tag 

homeless students in their database systems and are not required to do so under the McKinney Act. 

Therefore, few districts are able to measure the academic performance of homeless students or track their 

progress over time. However, given that family mobility is a the greatest barrier to school success for 

homeless students, states and districts need to collect and analyze achievement data for this transient 

population to ensure that homeless students are making academic gains and to provide some record of 

their achievement as they move from school to school. 

A district liaison for homeless issues can be an invaluable agent for ensuring school access for 

homeless students and for coordinating efforts with and among social service agencies and 

organization serving this population. By negotiating the network of local agencies and social service 

providers, liaisons have helped ensure that local services are not duplicated and that district staff members 

have a system for enrolling homeless students in school.