State and District Implementation of 

the Education for Homeless Children 

and Youth Program

State and District Implementation of the 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

2015
This report was prepared with support from Policy Studies Associates and Child Trends under 

U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-CFO-10-A-0021/001 with Policy Studies Associates. 

Beth Yeh served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not 

necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement 

by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this 

publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains 

information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such 

information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Robert Gordon

Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

February 2015

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, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

State and District Implementation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program,

Washington, DC, 2015.

This report is available on the Department’s website 

at: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#homeless.

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email 

at om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us 

at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact:

Stephanie Stullich

Phone: 202-401-2342

Email: stephanie.stullich@ed.gov
Contents

Page

List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... vii

Study Design and Limitations........................................................................................................ viii

Allocating EHCY Funds..................................................................................................................... ix

Roles and Responsibilities of State Coordinators and District Liaisons.......................................... ix

State Monitoring and Technical Assistance ..................................................................................... x

Data on Homeless Children and Youth ............................................................................................ x

Barriers to School Success............................................................................................................... xi

I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1

Study Design.....................................................................................................................................2

Study Limitations..............................................................................................................................4

II. Allocating EHCY Funds ..............................................................................................................................5

Setting Aside EHCY Funds for State Administration.........................................................................6

Subgranting EHCY Funds to School Districts and Regional Entities.................................................6

III. Roles and Responsibilities of EHCY State Coordinators and District Liaisons........................................11

State Staffing..................................................................................................................................11

District Staffing...............................................................................................................................13

Providing Services ..........................................................................................................................16

Staff Awareness of the Needs of Homeless Students....................................................................18

Coordination and Collaboration.....................................................................................................22

IV. State Monitoring and Technical Assistance...........................................................................................27

State Monitoring Activities ............................................................................................................27

Technical Assistance.......................................................................................................................30

Challenges for State Program Administration ...............................................................................33

V. Collecting Data on Homeless Children and Youth..................................................................................35

Data Collected................................................................................................................................35

Burden and Usefulness of Data......................................................................................................38

VI. Barriers to School Success for Homeless Children and Youth...............................................................41

References ..................................................................................................................................................45

Appendix A. Study Methodology ................................................................................................................47

Sample Selection............................................................................................................................47

Data Collection...............................................................................................................................48

Data Analysis..................................................................................................................................49

Appendix B. Survey Instruments.................................................................................................................53

State Coordinator Survey ...............................................................................................................55

District Liaison Survey ....................................................................................................................71

i
ii
Exhibits

Page

Exhibit 1 Number of EHCY districts and number of homeless students, by state, in 2010–11.............. 3

Exhibit 2 Federal appropriations for the EHCY program, in actual dollars and inflation-adjusted 

(FY 2013) dollars, from FY 1988 through FY 2013.................................................................... 5

Exhibit 3 Number of state coordinators reporting various percentages of EHCY funds reserved 

for state administration, 2010–11 ........................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 4 States providing part or all of their EHCY funds to regional entities and states providing 

EHCY awards to individual school districts, and number of EHCY districts per state, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................... 7

Exhibit 5 Number of state coordinators reporting certain selection criteria as among the three 

leading factors that were given the most weight in selecting applications for funding, 

2012 and 1998.......................................................................................................................... 9

Exhibit 6 Number of state coordinators who reported various responsibilities as among the 

three on which they spent the most time, 2010–11 ............................................................. 12

Exhibit 7 Hours per week that district liaisons reported spending on EHCY responsibilities, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 13

Exhibit 8 Average number of hours per week district liaisons spent on EHCY responsibilities, by 

district size, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................. 14

Exhibit 9 Percentage of district liaisons who reported various responsibilities as among the 

three responsibilities on which they spent the most time, 2010–11 .................................... 15

Exhibit 10 Percentage of district liaisons who reported providing various services to support the 

education of homeless children and youth, 2010–11 ........................................................... 17

Exhibit 11 Percentage of district liaisons who reported defraying the cost of transporting 

homeless children and youth as among the three services requiring the largest 

expenditures of EHCY funds, by district size, 2010–11.......................................................... 18

Exhibit 12 Number of state coordinators who reported using various methods to assess 

awareness among staff of various entities regarding the needs of homeless children 

and youth, 2010–11 ............................................................................................................... 19

Exhibit 13 Number of state coordinators who reported conducting awareness-raising activities 

with staff of various entities at a particular frequency, 2010–11.......................................... 19

Exhibit 14 Percentage of district liaisons who reported conducting awareness-raising activities 

with, and disseminating materials to, various entities at particular frequencies, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 15 Number of state coordinators who reported various areas of coordination and 

collaboration as among the three strategies that most improved EHCY administration 

and services, 2010–11............................................................................................................ 22

Exhibit 16 Number of state coordinators who reported using various approaches to facilitate 

collaboration and coordination between the EHCY and Title I staff, 2010–11 ..................... 23

iii
Exhibit 17 Percentage of district liaisons who reported spending the most time collaborating and 

coordinating with various programs and organizations, 2010–11 ........................................ 24

Exhibit 18 Percentage of district liaisons who reported various approaches to collaboration as 

among the three that most improved services to homeless children and youth, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 25

Exhibit 19 Percentage of district liaisons reporting various approaches to collaboration as among 

the three that most improved services to homeless children and youth, by number of

homeless students enrolled in the district, 2010–11............................................................. 26

Exhibit 20 Number of state coordinators who reported using various techniques to monitor EHCY

and non-EHCY districts, 2012 and 1998................................................................................. 28

Exhibit 21 Number of state coordinators who reported using various methods to follow up with 

districts for non-compliance, 2010–11 .................................................................................. 29

Exhibit 22 Number of state coordinators who reported that they provided technical assistance to 

districts on various topics and that they need more federal guidance or resources on 

those topics, 2010–11............................................................................................................ 31

Exhibit 23 Percentage of district liaisons who reported needing and receiving state technical 

assistance on various topics, 2010–11................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 24 Number of state coordinators who reported various issues as barriers to administering 

the EHCY program, 2010–11.................................................................................................. 33

Exhibit 25 Requirements for collecting certain data from EHCY and non-EHCY districts, and 

number of state coordinators who reported collecting data where not required, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 36

Exhibit 26 Number of state coordinators who reported using supplemental data sources, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 37

Exhibit 27 Number of state coordinators who reported that certain types of data collected on 

homeless children and youth were burdensome to collect and were not useful, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 38

Exhibit 28 Percentage of district liaisons who reported that certain types of data collected on 

homeless children and youth were burdensome to collect and were not useful, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 39

Exhibit 29 Number of state coordinators who reported using district-level data on homeless 

children and youth for various purposes, 2010–11............................................................... 40

Exhibit 30 Percentage of state coordinators and district liaisons who reported various issues as 

among the three most significant barriers to school success for homeless children and 

youth, 2010–11 ...................................................................................................................... 41

Exhibit 31 Percentage of district liaisons who reported various issues as among the three most 

significant barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth, 2010–11.......... 42

Exhibit 32 Percentage of district liaisons who reported various issues as among the three most

significant barriers to school attendance for homeless children and youth, 2010–11 ......... 43

Exhibit A.1 Distribution of EHCY districts in the sample and the sampling frame, by urbanicity, 

2010–11 ................................................................................................................................. 48

iv
Exhibit A.2 Federal appropriations for the EHCY program, in nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted 

(FY 2013) dollars, from FY 1988 through FY 2013.................................................................. 50

Exhibit A.3 U.S. Department of Education allocations to states and other agencies for the EHCY 

program, in nominal dollars, for FY 2010 and FY 2013.......................................................... 51

v
vi
Executive Summary

In the 2010–11 school year, approximately one million students — or 2 percent of the total number of 

students attending school — were identified as homeless (National Center for Homeless Education, 

2012). Most of these homeless children and youth (71 percent) were “doubled-up,” meaning that they 

resided with another family at night. Other homeless children and youth stayed at a shelter 

(17 percent), were unsheltered (7 percent), or stayed at a hotel (5 percent) (EDFacts 2010–11).

To address the challenges and barriers to school success for homeless children and youth, Congress 

created the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program, authorized under Title VII-B of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (MVHAA). The EHCY program provides funding to 

states and certain other jurisdictions and agencies with the goal of ensuring that homeless children and 

youth have access to the same free, appropriate public education as do other children and youth.

The 2001 reauthorization of MVHAA amended the legislation to require that all school districts, not just 

those receiving EHCY subgrants, appoint a local homeless liaison. It also strengthened legislative 

requirements against segregating homeless students, for providing appropriate transportation to and 

from school, and for ensuring immediate enrollment of homeless students.

During the 2010–11 school year, the year that is the focus of this study, states and districts received 

EHCY funding through regular fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the program ($65 million), as well as 

additional funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which 

provided an additional $70 million that was available for use during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 school 

years. States subgrant most of their regular EHCY funds to local education agencies (LEAs) through a 

competitive process but were permitted to allocate the additional EHCY funds provided under ARRA

through either competitive grants or formula grants. States may award subgrants directly to individual 

school districts or to regional entities that provide services to staff and students in multiple school 

districts.

This report examines state and school district implementation of the EHCY program based on surveys of 

state EHCY coordinators and district homeless liaisons and analysis of extant data. Key findings include:

• Sixteen states used a regional approach to suballocating EHCY funds; these 16 states accounted 

for 84 percent of all school districts that received EHCY funds and services.

• State coordinators reported spending the most time on providing technical assistance to 

districts and coordinating with other organizations, while district liaisons reported spending the 

most time on identifying eligible students and ensuring that homeless students and families 

received services.

• District liaisons indicated that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and supplemental 

instruction accounted for the largest expenditures of EHCY funds.

• State coordinators were more likely to report using site visits and integrated monitoring visits in 

2012 than in 1998, and the number who reported monitoring non-EHCY districts through site 

visits and desk monitoring more than doubled.

vii
• In addition to collecting required data such as homeless students’ achievement on state 

assessments, many states also collected other data such as graduation rates and attendance 

rates.

• Barriers to school enrollment and attendance for homeless students that were most frequently 

identified by district liaisons were transportation and family or student preoccupation with 

survival needs. Other barriers included delays in obtaining school records and inability to 

complete school assignments because of the lack of an appropriate study area.

Study Design and Limitations

This study examined five study questions regarding implementation of the EHCY program at both the 

state and school district levels:

1. How do states allocate EHCY funds?

2. What are the roles and responsibilities of the state coordinators and district liaisons? What 

services do districts provide to homeless children and youth?

3. How do states monitor and provide technical assistance to districts as part of the EHCY 

program? What technical assistance needs do state coordinators and district liaisons report?

4. What data do states and districts collect about homeless children and youth?

5. What do state coordinators and district liaisons perceive as barriers to school success for 

homeless children and youth?

The study included state and school district surveys to examine program implementation during 

the 2010–11 school year; the surveys were administered in spring 2012. In addition, the report also 

includes some comparisons with previous state surveys that were conducted in 1994 and 1998, as well 

as analysis of state-submitted data on homeless children and youth that are contained in the 

U.S. Department of Education’s EDFacts database.

The state survey was sent to all EHCY state coordinators for the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and the 

Bureau of Indian Education, and the district survey was sent to a representative sample of 448 district 

liaisons of EHCY districts. Response rates were 96 percent for the state survey and 87 percent for the 

district survey.

The data presented in this study have two limitations. The first limitation is that the study design did not 

take into account that 16 states used a regional approach to funding EHCY districts. As permitted under 

the statute, these states provided some or all EHCY subgrants to consortia or intermediary units that 

then provided services to staff and students in multiple districts. While surveys were sent to sampled 

districts within consortia or intermediary units, surveys were not sent to the administrators of consortia 

and intermediary units themselves. This means that the study did not capture the experiences and 

perspectives of this group of administrators regarding their implementation of the EHCY program.

The second limitation is that the survey data were self-reported and reflected the perspective of one 

individual in a particular state or district. In addition, some of the state and district survey respondents 

were not in their current positions in 2010–11 and therefore had to rely on others to provide 

information for that time.

viii
Allocating EHCY Funds

■ On average, states subgranted an estimated 85 percent of their EHCY allocations to school 

districts and regional entities and reserved 15 percent of the funds for use at the state level.

Half of responding state coordinators (24 out of 48) reported reserving 20 percent or more of 

the funds for state use, while 10 reported reserving less than 10 percent.

■ The 16 states that used a regional approach to subgranting EHCY funds accounted for 62 

percent of all homeless students and 84 percent of all school districts that received EHCY 

funds and services. States that provided EHCY funds to regional entities often also provided 

some EHCY funds to individual school districts.

Roles and Responsibilities of State Coordinators and District Liaisons

■ State coordinators reported spending the most time on providing technical assistance to 

districts and coordinating with other organizations, while district liaisons reported spending 

the most time on identifying eligible students and ensuring that homeless students and 

families received services.

o When asked to report the three activities on which they spent the most time, state 

coordinators most often said providing technical assistance to districts (42 states), 

coordinating with other organizations and agencies (30 states), and helping districts 

understand EHCY requirements and the role of the district liaison (24 states). 

o District liaisons reported spending the most time identifying eligible homeless children 

and youth (66 percent), ensuring that homeless children and youth and their families 

received services for which they are eligible (47 percent), and coordinating 

transportation services (37 percent).

■ District liaisons reported providing both direct services to homeless children and youth and 

their families and coordinating the efforts of others to provide those services. Ninety-one 

percent of district liaisons reported providing school supplies to homeless children and youth 

and their families, and 78 percent reported helping coordinate the efforts between schools and 

agencies that provided services to homeless children and youth.

■ District liaisons indicated that their largest expenditures of EHCY funds were for 

transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and supplemental instruction. Fifty-two percent 

of district liaisons reported that defraying the cost of transportation for homeless children and 

youth was one of the three largest expenditures of EHCY funds, while 46 percent reported 

spending on school supplies and 29 percent reported spending on tutoring or supplemental 

instruction.

■ District liaisons reported that the coordination and collaboration efforts that most improved 

services were those that focused on building programmatic linkages among various programs, 

agencies, or organizations working to serve homeless children and youth (40 percent);

identifying barriers that impede access to school (36 percent); and reviewing district policies or 

regulations that affect homeless populations (36 percent).

ix
■ District liaisons reported conducting awareness-raising activities regarding homeless students 

more frequently with staff at schools and district offices than with other agencies and 

organizations. More than two-thirds of district liaisons reported conducting awareness-raising 

activities with schools, the district Title I office, and other offices within the district at least once 

a year. On the other hand, 50 percent or more of district liaisons reported never conducting 

awareness-raising activities with staff at homeless shelters, Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

programs, Head Start, or programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

State Monitoring and Technical Assistance

■ The number of state coordinators who reported using site visits and integrated monitoring 

visits increased from 1998 to 2012. 

o Forty-three state coordinators reported monitoring EHCY districts through site visits in 

the 2012 survey, up from 37 in 1998, and 33 reported using integrated monitoring visits 

in 2012, up from 27 in 1998. 

o Use of desk monitoring (i.e., phone calls and written correspondence) declined slightly, 

from 37 to 34 states; 29 of the 34 coordinators reporting doing this in addition to site 

visit monitoring.

■ The number of state coordinators who said they monitored non-EHCY districts’ efforts to 

reduce educational barriers for homeless children and youth through site visits and desk 

monitoring more than doubled from 1998 to 2012. For example, 26 state coordinators reported 

using site visits to monitor non-EHCY districts in 2012, up from nine in 1998.

■ State coordinators reported needing more assistance on enhancing parental involvement (31 

state coordinators), developing additional learning opportunities for homeless students within 

the school day (26 state coordinators), transportation across district boundaries (25 state

coordinators), and coordinating with Title I programs (25 state coordinators). 

■ District liaisons most often reported needing state technical assistance to help them better 

understand MVHAA legal requirements and to help them collect, use, and report data about 

homeless students. Fifty-six percent of district liaisons reported needing state technical 

assistance to understand the requirements of the MVHAA law; 55 percent reported needing 

technical assistance to understand the legal responsibilities of the district liaison; and 44 percent 

reported needing technical assistance on collecting, using, and reporting data about homeless 

students. 

Data on Homeless Children and Youth 

■ State coordinators often reported collecting more comprehensive data on homeless students 

than is required under the law. In addition to collecting required data on the numbers of 

homeless students, achievement on state assessments, and student characteristics, states often 

also collected data on graduation or dropout rates (31 states) and attendance rates (24 states).

Although the law requires some data to be reported just for subgrantees, states often collected 

the data from non-subgrantees as well.

x
■ Thirty-six state coordinators reported that their state data system uses a unique student 

identifier to link data collected on homeless children and youth with individual student 

outcome data, such as scores on state assessments and school attendance.

Barriers to School Success

■ State coordinators and district liaisons reported that student mobility was among the most 

significant barriers to school success for homeless children and youth.

o From a list of six potential barriers to school success, 72 percent of state coordinators 

and 78 percent of district liaisons identified frequent mobility as among the most 

significant barriers. 

o Lack of awareness and sensitivity among school administrators and teachers to the 

educational needs of homeless students was reported as a significant barrier by 68 

percent of state coordinators, although only 19 percent of district liaisons reported this 

as a barrier.

■ Barriers to school enrollment and attendance for homeless students that were most 

frequently identified by district liaisons were transportation to and from school and family or 

student preoccupation with survival needs. 

o The most frequently reported barriers to school enrollment were transportation to and 

from school (53 percent of district liaisons), family preoccupation with survival needs 

(48 percent), delays in obtaining school records (41 percent), and residency 

requirements for school enrollment (34 percent). 

o The most frequently reported barriers to school attendance were family preoccupation 

with survival needs (82 percent of district liaisons), transportation to and from school 

(43 percent), inability to complete school assignments because of the lack of an 

appropriate study area (42 percent), lack of adequate clothing and supplies

(30 percent), and poor health or inadequate medical care (29 percent).

xi
xii
I. Introduction

In the 2010–11 school year, approximately one million students — or 2 percent of the total number of 

students attending school — were identified as homeless (National Center for Homeless Education, 

2012). Most of these homeless children and youth (71 percent) were “doubled-up,” meaning that they 

resided with another family at night. Other homeless children and youth stayed at a shelter 

(17 percent), were unsheltered (7 percent), or stayed at a hotel (5 percent) (EDFacts 2010–11).

To address the challenges and barriers to school success for homeless children and youth, Congress 

created the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program, authorized under Title VII-B of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (MVHAA). The MVHAA defines homeless children 

and youth as those who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including:

■ Children and youth who are sharing the housing of other persons because of loss of housing, 

economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping 

grounds because of lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or 

transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement.

■ Children and youth who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not 

designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

■ Children and youth who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard 

housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings.

MVHAA explicitly includes migratory children who are living in the above-listed circumstances.

The EHCY program provides grants to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and outlying areas 

with the goal of ensuring that homeless children and youth have access to the same free, appropriate 

public education as do other children and youth. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education 

transfers, under a memorandum of agreement, 1 percent of each year’s appropriation to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) for programs for homeless Indian students served by schools funded by the BIA.

MVHAA requires states to establish an Office of Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth and requires school districts to appoint a local homeless liaison. The 2001 reauthorization of 

MVHAA amended the legislation to require that all school districts, not just those receiving EHCY funds, 

appoint a homeless liaison. It also strengthened legislative requirements against segregating homeless 

students, for providing appropriate transportation to and from school, and for determining school 

placement and ensuring immediate enrollment of homeless students.

During the 2010–11 school year, the year that is the focus of this study, states and districts received 

EHCY funding through regular fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriations for the program ($65 million), as well 

as additional funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which 

provided an additional $70 million that was available for use during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 school 

years.1 States suballocate regular EHCY funds to local education agencies (LEAs) through a competitive 

1 This report is focused on the EHCY program in general and provides limited information specifically addressing 

the additional funds provided under ARRA. More specifically, the report provides information on the methods 

states reported using to allocate the ARRA funds but does not examine the distribution or uses of ARRA funds.

1

 
process but were permitted to allocate the additional EHCY funds provided under ARRA through either 

competitive grants or formula grants. States may award subgrants directly to individual school districts 

or to regional entities that provide services to staff and students in multiple school districts.

Seven in 10 homeless students (71 percent) attended school in a district that received EHCY funds or 

services in the 2010–11 school year. The percentage of homeless students who attended school in EHCY 

districts varied by state, ranging from less than 25 percent in two states (New Jersey and Vermont) to 

100 percent in four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) (Exhibit 1).

Homeless students in cities were more likely to attend school in an EHCY district (88 percent, compared 

with 72 percent in suburbs, 53 percent in rural areas, and 49 percent in towns). Across all EHCY districts, 

an estimated 2.8 percent of all students, on average, were homeless. The five states with the largest 

reported numbers of homeless students (California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois) accounted for 

46 percent of all homeless students and 52 percent of all homeless students in EHCY districts (EDFacts 

2010–11).

2

Study Design

This study examined implementation of the EHCY program at the state and school district levels based on 

surveys of state EHCY coordinators and district homeless liaisons and analysis of extant data. The specific 

study questions examined are:

1. How do states allocate EHCY funds?

2. What are the roles and responsibilities of the state coordinators and district liaisons? What 

services do districts provide to homeless children and youth?

3. How do states monitor and provide technical assistance to districts as part of the EHCY 

program? What technical assistance needs do state coordinators and district liaisons report?

4. What data do states and districts collect about homeless children and youth?

5. What do state coordinators and district liaisons perceive as barriers to school success for 

homeless children and youth?

This report is based primarily on state and school district surveys that were conducted in spring 2012 

and that asked about program implementation during the 2010–11 school year. In addition, the report 

also includes some comparisons with previous state surveys conducted in 1994 and 1998,3 as well as 

analysis of state-submitted data on homeless children and youth that are contained in the Department’s 

EDFacts database.

2 California had the largest percentage of homeless students (21 percent), followed by New York (8 percent), Texas 

(8 percent), Florida (5 percent), and Illinois (4 percent).

3 Findings from the 1994 survey of state coordinators were reported in Anderson, Janger, & Panton (1995). 

Findings from the 1998 survey of state coordinators were reported in Phillips, Wodatch, & Kelliher (2002).

2

 
Exhibit 1

Number of EHCY districts and number of homeless students, by state, in 2010–11

State

Number of 

EHCY districts

Number of 

homeless students 

in EHCY districts

Number of 

homeless students 

in all districts

Percentage of homeless 

students who were 

enrolled in EHCY districts

Total 3,075 727,782 1,021,330 71%

Alabama 36 14,851 18,514 80%

Alaska 4 3,740 4,336 86%

Arizona 17 10,497 30,952 34%

Arkansas 19 3,035 9,532 32%

California 749 159,557 214,061 75%

Colorado 40 14,717 19,418 76%

Connecticut 31 2,063 2,777 74%

Delaware 11 2,396 2,522 95%

District of Columbia 1 1,975 3,453 57%

Florida 41 51,598 54,795 94%

Georgia 43 23,819 31,267 76%

Hawaii 1 2,276 2,276 100%

Idaho 4 2,287 4,721 48%

Illinois 391 36,967 36,967 100%

Indiana 17 6,843 13,292 51%

Iowa 12 3,950 6,830 58%

Kansas 10 5,034 8,731 58%

Kentucky 16 18,113 33,145 55%

Louisiana 15 12,125 21,983 55%

Maine 5 372 981 38%

Maryland 11 12,542 13,371 94%

Massachusetts 16 9,986 13,888 72%

Michigan 218 29,058 30,163 96%

Minnesota 6 6,041 10,801 56%

Mississippi 11 3,691 9,892 37%

Missouri 9 7,341 19,599 37%

Montana 5 1,320 1,497 88%

Nebraska 9 2,317 2,615 89%

Nevada 6 9,131 9,131 100%

New Hampshire 3 1,721 3,105 55%

New Jersey 3 1,282 5,383 24%

New Mexico 15 9,877 10,476 94%

New York 239 76,891 86,700 89%

North Carolina 25 13,873 17,904 77%

North Dakota 5 643 855 75%

Ohio 67 13,254 21,117 63%

Oklahoma 10 6,573 16,313 40%

Oregon 53 12,978 20,545 63%

Pennsylvania 501 17,903 17,903 100%

Rhode Island 5 442 947 47%

South Carolina 16 6,043 10,360 58%

South Dakota 2 1,317 1,827 72%

Tennessee 15 12,342 13,713 90%

Texas 253 50,897 77,952 65%

Utah 10 10,178 22,974 44%

Vermont 4 141 891 16%

Virginia 22 11,651 15,930 73%

Washington 38 10,390 25,092 41%

West Virginia 16 3,580 6,364 56%

Wisconsin 16 7,680 12,641 61%

Wyoming 3 484 828 58%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts.

3
The state survey was sent to all EHCY state coordinators for the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and the 

Bureau of Indian Education, and the district survey was sent to a representative sample of district 

liaisons of EHCY districts (those districts that receive EHCY funds directly from the state or that are 

served through an EHCY consortium or intermediary unit). The district sample includes the 50 EHCY 

districts with the largest enrollments and 398 randomly selected EHCY districts, for a total sample of 448 

EHCY districts.4 Response rates were 96 percent for the state survey (50 state respondents) and 87 

percent for the district survey (388 district liaison respondents). 

The EDFacts data used in this report include state- and district-level data on the total number of 

homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools, the number by grade level, and the number by 

primary nighttime residences for all districts, along with additional data for EHCY districts.

Study Limitations

The study has two limitations. The first limitation is that the study design did not take into account that 

16 states used a regional approach to funding EHCY districts. As permitted under the statute, these 

states provided EHCY funding directly to a consortium or intermediary unit that then provided services 

to individual districts. While surveys were sent to sampled districts within consortia or intermediary 

units, surveys were not sent to the administrators of consortia and intermediary units themselves. This 

means that the study did not capture the experiences and perspectives of this group of administrators 

regarding their implementation of the EHCY program.

The second limitation is that the survey data were self-reported and therefore reflected the perspective 

of one individual in a particular state or district. In addition, some of the state and district survey 

respondents who responded to the surveys in spring 2012 had not been in their current positions in 

2010–11, the year that was the focus of the surveys, and therefore had to rely on others to provide 

information for that time.

4 The results were weighted to account for the selection with certainty of the 50 EHCY districts with the largest 

enrollments. 

4

 
II. Allocating EHCY Funds

Under the EHCY program, most states must subgrant at least 75 percent of regular EHCY funds to LEAs, 

which may include school districts and regional entities, to support local programs and services for 

homeless children and youth; states that receive small allocations (0.25 percent of the total annual 

appropriation) must subgrant at least 50 percent of the funds to LEAs. States may reserve the remaining 

funds for state-level activities. States allocate regular EHCY funds to LEAs through a competitive process, 

taking into consideration both the applicant’s need for assistance and the quality of the application. 

States were permitted to allocate the additional EHCY funds provided under ARRA through either 

competitive grants or formula grants. 

Since 2002, federal appropriations for the EHCY program have risen in terms of nominal dollars, 

essentially keeping pace with inflation. Program funding rose from $50 million in FY 2002 ($64 million in 

FY 2013 dollars) to $65 million in FY 2009 and remained at that level through FY 2013 (Exhibit 2). Over 

the longer term, EHCY funding has risen from the initial funding level of $5 million in FY 1988 ($8 million 

in FY 2013 dollars). In addition, ARRA provided an additional $70 million that was available for use 

during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 school years. 

Exhibit 2

Federal appropriations for the EHCY program, 

in actual dollars and inflation-adjusted (FY 2013) dollars, from FY 1988 through FY 2013

Exhibit reads: Federal appropriations for the EHCY program rose from the initial funding level of $5 million 

in FY 1988 ($8 million in FY 2013 dollars) to $65 million in FY 2013.

NOTE: See Exhibit A.2 in Appendix A for annual appropriations figures in nominal and constant dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013

$ in Millions

Fiscal Year Actual $ Real FY13 $

5
Setting Aside EHCY Funds for State Administration 

On average, states reserved an estimated 15 percent of their regular EHCY 

allocations for use at the state level and subgranted the remaining 85 percent 

to districts and regional entities.

Half of responding state coordinators (24 out of 48) reported reserving 20 percent or more of the funds 

for state use,

5 while 10 reported reserving less than 10 percent (Exhibit 3). Seven states reported

reserving less than 5 percent, and two states reported reserving more than 25 percent.

Exhibit 3

Number of state coordinators reporting various percentages of 

EHCY funds reserved for state administration, 2010–11

Percentage reserved Number of state coordinators

<5% 7

5% – 9% 3

10% – 14% 3

15% – 19% 11

20% – 25% 22

>25% 2

Exhibit reads: Seven state coordinators reported that their state reserved less 

than 5 percent of EHCY funds for state administration.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 20 (n = 48).

In FY 2011, four states received the guaranteed minimum state allocation of 0.25 percent of total 

appropriations (Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); this minimum amounted to $163,241 in 

that year. These four states reported reserving an estimated average of 19 percent of their allocation for 

state administration. The two states that reported reserving more than 25 percent for state use were 

not minimum-allocation states.

Subgranting EHCY Funds to School Districts and Regional Entities

Sixteen state coordinators reported providing part or all of their EHCY subgrants to 

regional entities such as regional education service agencies, other intermediary 

units, or consortia of school districts; the remaining 34 states and the District of 

Columbia allocated all EHCY subgrants directly to individual school districts.

States reported a total of 3,075 school districts that received EHCY funds or services from the FY 2010 

appropriation for use during the 2010–11 school year (Exhibit 4).

5 The survey asked states to report their percent reserved using specified range categories (item 20). To estimate 

the average percentage reserved across states, we used the midpoint of each range category multiplied by each 

state’s EHCY allocation to produce a weighted average.

6

 
Exhibit 4

States providing part or all of their EHCY funds to regional entities and states providing EHCY awards 

to individual school districts, and number of EHCY districts per state, 2010–11

States providing funding

to regional entities

Number of

EHCY districts

States providing awards

to individual school districts

Number of 

EHCY districts

Total = 16 2,597 Total = 35 478

California 749 Georgia 43

Pennsylvania 501 Florida 41

Illinois 391 Colorado 40

Texas 253 Alabama 36

New York 239 Connecticut 31

Michigan 218 Arkansas 19

Ohio 67 Arizona 17

Oregon 53 Indiana 17

Washington 38 Kentucky 16

North Carolina 25 Massachusetts 16

Virginia 22 South Carolina 16

Louisiana 15 Wisconsin 16

Oklahoma 10 West Virginia 16

Missouri 9 New Mexico 15

Vermont 4 Tennessee 15

New Jersey 3 Iowa 12

Delaware 11

Maryland 11

Mississippi 11

Kansas 10

Utah 10

Nebraska 9

Minnesota 6

Nevada 6

Maine 5

Montana 5

North Dakota 5

Rhode Island 5

Alaska 4

Idaho 4

New Hampshire 3

Wyoming 3

South Dakota 2

District of Columbia 1

Hawaii 1

Exhibit reads: During 2010–11, California used a regional funding approach and supported EHCY services in a total 

of 749 EHCY districts.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 21 (n = 51).

7
The 16 states that used a regional approach to providing EHCY services accounted 

for 62 percent of all homeless students and 84 percent of all school districts that 

received EHCY funds and services.

More than three-fourths (76 percent) of all EHCY districts were in six states (California, Illinois, Michigan, 

New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas). The number of EHCY districts per state ranged from a high of 749 

(California) to fewer than five districts in nine states (Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).

States that provided EHCY funds to regional entities often also provided some 

EHCY funds to individual school districts.

Out of 39 states that reported data on EHCY allocations for the 2009–10 school year to EDFacts, 12 

reported allocating funds to one or more regional agencies, and all but one of these 12 states reported 

making allocations to both regional entities and individual school districts. Some of these states 

allocated most of their funds to a small number of regional agencies; for example, two states reported 

providing a grant to their largest school district and providing the remaining funds to regional entities. 

Other states allocated most funds to individual school districts while also providing some funding to 

regional agencies. 

When asked to choose from a list of six possible types of selection criteria, 

state coordinators were most likely to report that the quality of the proposed project 

was one of the three leading selection factors that were given the most weight in 

selecting applications for funding (38 state coordinators in 2012, up from 26 in 

1998).

The next most frequently reported selection criteria were the number of homeless children and youth in 

the district (27 coordinators in 2012) and districts’ capacity to provide the services offered (25 

coordinators). Exhibit 5 shows the responses of state coordinators in both 2012 and 1998.

8
Exhibit 5

Number of state coordinators reporting certain selection criteria as among the three leading factors

that were given the most weight in selecting applications for funding, 2012 and 1998

Selection criteria

Selection criteria 2012 1998

Quality and capacity

Quality and capacity

Quality and capacity Quality of the proposed project 38 26

Quality and capacity Districts’ capacity to provide the services offered 25 19

Quality and capacity Districts’ prior experience in serving homeless children and youth 12 17 Need

Need Need Number of homeless children and youth in the district 27 23 Need Severity of the unmet needs of homeless children and youth in the district 16 20 Need Concentration or proportion of homeless children and youth in the district 15 13

All applications were 

funded All applications were funded 7 13

Exhibit reads: Thirty-eight state coordinators in 2012 reported that the quality of the proposed project was one of 

the three selection criteria that were given the most weight in selecting applications for funding.

NOTE: Although some states reported funding all applications, these states generally also reported using at least one of the selection criteria

listed above. In 2012, all but two states (Illinois and Indiana) reported using at least one of the listed selection criteria.

SOURCES: Data for 2012 are from State Coordinator Survey, item 22 (n = 49); 1998 data are from Phillips, Wodatch, & Kelliher (2002) (n = 49) 

(Hawaii consists of only one LEA and does not subgrant funds).

States were equally likely to use formula grants and competitive grants to allocate the 

additional EHCY funds provided under ARRA. 

Of the 45 state coordinators who responded to this survey question, 20 reported allocating these funds 

to LEAs on a formula basis only, 19 reported allocating the funds on a competitive basis only, and six

reported allocating the funds through both formula and competitive grants.

9
10
III. Roles and Responsibilities of EHCY

State Coordinators and District Liaisons

The EHCY program requires that every state have a state coordinator to administer the EHCY program 

and that every district, regardless of whether the district receives EHCY funding or services, must have a 

district liaison who is responsible for ensuring that the needs of homeless children and youth are met.

State coordinators are expected to gather information on problems that homeless children and youth 

have in gaining access to public schools and progress in allowing them to enroll in, attend, and succeed in 

school; develop and carry out the state plan; report data on the needs of homeless children and youth; 

facilitate coordination among state agencies; coordinate and collaborate with educators, service 

providers, district liaisons, and community organizations; and provide technical assistance to school 

districts. 

District liaisons are expected to ensure that the district identifies homeless children and youth, enrolls 

and provides homeless children and youth an equal opportunity to succeed in school, provides 

educational services and appropriate referrals for which homeless children and youth and their families 

are eligible, informs parents or guardians of the educational opportunities available to them,

disseminates public notice of the educational rights of homeless children and youth, mediates enrollment 

disputes, and informs parents or guardians of appropriate transportation services. 

State Staffing

In 2012, about one-fifth of state coordinators were new to their position, with 11 coordinators reporting 

having spent less than a year in this position. The average tenure for state coordinators was six years, 

compared with an average of five years in 1998. Because a few coordinators had very long tenures in 

their position (as many as 25 years in one case), the mean tenure of six years was higher than the 

median tenure of four years in 2012.

State coordinator survey results showed little change from 1994 to 2012 in the 

number of hours that they reported spending on their responsibilities.

On average, state coordinators reported spending 27 hours per week in 2010–11 to manage and 

implement the EHCY program, about the same as was reported in the 1994 survey (26 hours).

The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) state staff members administering the EHCY program 

per state was 1.5 FTEs in 2010–11, compared with 1.3 FTEs based on the 1994 survey. These numbers 

include other staff members in addition to the state coordinators. 

State coordinators reported engaging in a variety of activities related to the coordination and 

administration of the EHCY program, including gathering information on the problems homeless 

children and youth face, coordinating with other organizations and agencies to provide and improve 

services to homeless children and youth, raising awareness and understanding among districts of the 

MVHAA legislative requirements and the role of the district liaisons, providing technical assistance, and 

monitoring districts with and without EHCY subgrants.

11
When asked about the three activities on which they spent the most time, state 

coordinators most frequently selected providing technical assistance to districts, 

coordinating efforts to serve homeless children and youth, and raising awareness of 

EHCY requirements.

Forty-two state coordinators reported that providing technical assistance to districts was one of the 

activities on which they spent the most time providing technical assistance to districts, while 30 

reported coordinating efforts to serve homeless children and youth, and 24 reported raising awareness 

of EHCY requirements (Exhibit 6). State technical assistance included responding to questions from 

district liaisons and other district staff, providing training for district liaisons and other district staff, and 

providing written materials to help districts implement the EHCY program.

Exhibit 6

Number of state coordinators who reported various responsibilities

as among the three on which they spent the most time, 2010–11

Responsibilities Number of state 

coordinators

Providing technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, providing 

information) to districts to ensure that districts comply with MVHAA 42

Coordinating with other organizations and agencies (e.g., state social service agencies, 

legal advocates, and community-based organizations) to provide and improve services to 

homeless children and youth

30

Raising awareness and understanding among districts of the MVHAA legislative 

requirements and the role of the district liaison 24

Monitoring districts with and without EHCY subgrants 18

Resolving disputes (e.g., enrollment, provision of services, transportation disputes) 14

Ensuring the review and revisions of any state or local laws, regulations, practices, or 

policies that may act as barriers to the enrollment, attendance, or school success of 

homeless children and youth 

6

Providing to the U.S. Department of Education, upon request, information that the 

Department determines is necessary to assess the educational needs of homeless children 

and youth

5

Gathering information on the progress of the state and districts in addressing problems 

faced by homeless children and youth 4

Gathering information on the success of the EHCY program in allowing homeless children 

and youth to enroll in, attend, and succeed in school (program evaluation) 3

Gathering information on the problems faced by homeless children and youth (needs 

assessment) 1

Exhibit reads: Forty-two state coordinators reported that providing technical assistance to districts was among the 

three responsibilities on which they spent the most time.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 5 (n = 50).

12
District Staffing

The reported tenure of district liaisons varied considerably. Twelve percent of district liaisons reported 

serving in their positions for less than a year, while 6 percent reported having served in their position for 

15 years or more. District liaisons reported that their median tenure was four years (average of five

years).

More than three-fourths of district liaisons reported spending 10 or fewer hours per 

week on EHCY responsibilities.

Seventy-seven percent of district liaisons reported spending 10 or fewer hours per week on EHCY 

responsibilities, while 12 percent spent between 11 and 29 hours per week, and 11 percent spent

between 30 and 40 hours per week on these responsibilities (Exhibit 7). Sixty-four percent of district 

liaisons reported that additional district staff helped administer the EHCY program.

Exhibit 7

Hours per week that district liaisons reported spending on EHCY responsibilities, 2010–11

Hours per week Percentage of 

district liaisons

0–10 77%

11–29 12%

30–40 11%

Exhibit reads: Seventy-seven percent of district liaisons reported spending between 0 and 10 

hours per week on EHCY responsibilities.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 2 (n = 386 districts).

13
District liaisons working in districts with larger student populations spent 

significantly more time on their EHCY responsibilities than did those working in 

smaller districts.

District liaisons from the 50 largest school districts spent 31 hours per week on responsibilities for the 

EHCY program, while the average across all other district liaisons was eight hours. District liaisons in 

large districts with 10,000 or more students spent 21 hours a week on EHCY responsibilities, compared 

with six hours for the EHCY program for district liaisons in medium districts with between 1,000 and 

9,999 students, and three hours for district liaisons in small districts with fewer than 1,000 students 

(Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8

Average number of hours per week district liaisons spent on EHCY responsibilities,

by district size, 2010–11

District size Average number of 

hours per week

Districts with more than 10,000 students 21

Districts with between 1,000 and 9,999 students 6

Districts with fewer than 1,000 students 3

All districts 8

Exhibit reads: In districts with more than 10,000 students, the amount of time that district 

liaisons reported spending on EHCY responsibilities averaged 21 hours per week.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 2 (n = 386 districts).

Similarly, district liaisons in districts with 500 or more homeless children and youth reported spending 

significantly more time per week (26 hours) on responsibilities than did those working in districts with 

between 20 and 499 homeless children and youth (nine hours) or those in districts with fewer than 20 

homeless children and youth (one hour). District liaisons in city districts spent significantly more time 

per week (19 hours) on their responsibilities than did district liaisons in suburban districts (seven hours), 

small-town districts (seven hours), or rural districts (five hours).

14
District homeless liaisons most commonly reported identifying homeless children 

and youth as one of the three responsibilities on which they spent the most time.

Sixty-six percent of district liaisons reported that identifying or helping others identify homeless children 

and youth was one of the three responsibilities on which they spent the most time. Other 

responsibilities that district liaisons said they spent the most time on were ensuring that homeless 

children and youth and their families received the educational services for which they were eligible (47

percent) and coordinating transportation services (37 percent) (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9

Percentage of district liaisons who reported various responsibilities

as among the three responsibilities on which they spent the most time, 2010–11

Responsibilities Percentage of 

district liaisons

Identifying, or helping others identify, homeless children and youth 66%

Ensuring that homeless children and youth and their families receive the educational 

services for which they are eligible 47%

Coordinating transportation services 37%

Enrolling, or helping others enroll, homeless children and youth in school and mediating 

enrollment disputes 32%

Collecting, or helping others collect, data on homeless children and youth 27%

Working with families to access support services through local government agencies and 

community-based organizations 24%

Collaborating and coordinating with local government agencies and community-based 

organizations to provide support services to homeless families 20%

Informing parents or guardians of homeless children and youth of the educational and 

related opportunities available to them 15%

Disseminating public notice of the educational rights of homeless children and youth 7%

Obtaining, or helping others obtain, immunization or medical records 6%

Informing parents or guardians of homeless children and youth of all transportation 

services available 6%

Ensuring homeless children and youth and their families receive health referrals 3%

Collaborating and coordinating with the state coordinator for the EHCY program 3%

Exhibit reads: Sixty-six percent of district liaisons reported that identifying, or helping others identify, homeless 

children and youth was among the three responsibilities on which they spent the most time.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 4 (n = 386 districts).

15
Some district liaisons reported spending time on the following additional items not listed on the survey: 

collecting food, clothing, personal care items, and school supplies for homeless students and their 

families (seven liaisons); coordinating or overseeing tutoring (seven liaisons); managing grant 

expenditures (four liaisons); training others (e.g., advocates, school staff, and community partners) (four 

liaisons); and coordinating postsecondary education for high school seniors (one liaison).

A significantly higher percentage of district liaisons in districts with 500 or more homeless students (50

percent) reported enrolling or helping others enroll homeless children and youth in school and 

mediating enrollment disputes as among the responsibilities on which they spent the most time, 

compared with district liaisons in districts with 20 to 499 homeless students (29 percent) or those with 

fewer than 20 homeless students (32 percent). In addition, a significantly higher percentage of district 

liaisons in cities (53 percent) and suburban districts (40 percent) reported enrolling or helping others 

enroll homeless children and youth in school and mediating enrollment disputes as among the 

responsibilities on which they spent the most time, compared with district liaisons in small-town (18 

percent) and rural districts (21 percent).

Providing Services

District liaisons reported providing both direct services to homeless children and 

youth and their families and coordinating the efforts of others to provide those 

services.

Ninety-one percent of district liaisons provided school supplies, and 78 percent helped coordinate 

schools’ and agencies’ efforts at providing services to homeless children and youth. Seventy-six percent 

of district liaisons reported providing tutoring or supplemental instruction, and 75 percent reported 

providing referrals for medical, dental, and other health services (Exhibit 10).

Eleven percent of district liaisons indicated that they provided other services not listed on the survey, 

including providing food, clothing, and personal care items, as well as completing and providing 

assistance with paperwork such as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and Medicaid 

paperwork. Two percent of district liaisons indicated that they provided no services; however, these 

districts were ones with very few or no identified homeless students.

16
Exhibit 10

Percentage of district liaisons who reported providing various services

to support the education of homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Services

Percentage

providing 

service

Service is among district’s 

three largest expenditures 

of EHCY funds

School supplies 91% 46%

Coordination between schools and agencies that provide services 

to homeless children and youth 78% 18%

Tutoring or supplemental instruction 76% 29%

Referrals for medical, dental, and other health services 75% 10%

Obtaining or transferring records necessary for student 

enrollment in school 74% 8%

Defraying the cost of transportation for homeless children and 

youth that is not fully funded by federal, state, and local funds 65% 52%

Counseling for homeless children and youth 63% 5%

District staff training and awareness-building activities on the 

needs of homeless children and youth 61% 10%

Parent education related to rights and resources for homeless 

children and youth 55% 5%

School staff training and awareness-building about the needs of 

homeless children and youth 53% 9%

Emergency assistance related to school attendance 44% 15%

Early childhood programs for homeless preschool-aged children 

and youth 42% 3%

Addressing the needs of homeless children and youth related to 

domestic violence 37% <1%

Before- and after-school mentoring and summer programs 36% 11%

Services and assistance to attract, engage, and retain homeless 

children and youth in regular school programs 36% 14%

Expedited evaluations of the strengths and needs of homeless 

children and youth 30% 5%

None 2% Not applicable

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of district liaisons reported providing school supplies to homeless students, and 

46 percent said this service was among their district’s three largest expenditures of EHCY funds.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 18 (for data on services provided, n = 388; for data on services that were among the district’s three largest 

expenditures, n = 311).

17
District liaisons most commonly reported transportation, school supplies, and 

tutoring or supplemental instruction for homeless students as among the largest 

expenditures of EHCY funds. 

When asked to choose from a list of 16 possible expenditures in the areas of administration, student and 

family services, and training, 52 percent of district liaisons reported that defraying the cost of 

transportation for homeless children and youth was one of the largest expenditures of EHCY funds. In 

addition, 46 percent reported that spending on school supplies and 29 percent reported that spending 

on tutoring or supplemental instruction were among the largest expenditures of EHCY funds (Exhibit 10).

District liaisons in medium-sized districts and large districts were significantly more likely to report that 

defraying the cost of transportation was among the services requiring the largest expenditures of EHCY 

funds than were small districts (Exhibit 11). Sixty-one percent of district liaisons in medium-sized 

districts reported that defraying the cost of transportation was among the services requiring the largest 

expenditures of EHCY funds, compared with 32 percent in small districts and 51 percent in large 

districts.

Exhibit 11

Percentage of district liaisons who reported defraying the cost of transporting

homeless children and youth as among the three services requiring the largest

expenditures of EHCY funds, by district size, 2010–11

District enrollment size Percentage of 

district liaisons

Large districts (10,000 or more) 51%

Medium districts (1,000 to 9,999) 61%

Small districts (fewer than 1,000 students) 32%

Exhibit reads: Fifty-one percent of district liaisons in large districts reported that defraying the 

cost of transportation for homeless children and youth was among the three services requiring 

the largest expenditures of EHCY funds.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 18 (n = 311 districts).

Staff Awareness of the Needs of Homeless Students

State coordinators reported that the most common method of assessing staff 

awareness of the needs of homeless children and youth or the statutory 

requirements of MVHAA was through informal conversations.

To assess the level of staff awareness among the programs and agencies in their state regarding the 

needs of homeless children and youth, state coordinators reported conducting surveys, interviews, 

informal conversations, and tracking technical assistance inquiries. Thirty-seven state coordinators 

reported assessing awareness among the staff of the state Title I office through informal conversations, 

and 36 reported assessing awareness among staff of other state government agencies through informal 

conversations. State coordinators assessed district staff more often with more formal means, such as 

surveys and interviews, than they did staff from other agencies and organizations. Some state 

coordinators reported that they did not assess staff awareness of the needs of homeless children and 

youth, most commonly for staff of “other” local government agencies, Head Start, and programs funded 

by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Exhibit 12).

18
Exhibit 12

Number of state coordinators who reported using various methods to assess awareness

among staff of various entities regarding the needs of homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Entities Informal 

conversations

Interviews or 

focus groups Survey

Barrier tracking 

or technical 

assistance inquiries None

Title I 37 13 9 25 2

Other state government agencies 36 12 4 10 9

Other offices within the state 34 15 4 11 6

Head Start 33 18 6 9 14

School districts 32 23 21 26 1

Other local government agencies 30 14 1 9 16

HUD-funded programs 27 15 1 5 13

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven state coordinators reported assessing awareness of the needs of homeless children and 

youth among Title I staff through informal conversations.

NOTE: Respondents could check all that apply, so rows should not sum to 50.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 16 (n = 50).

State coordinators were most likely to report focusing their efforts on conducting 

awareness-raising efforts on school districts and state Title I offices.

To raise awareness of homeless children and youth within their state, state coordinators reported 

conducting awareness-raising activities such as workshops, presentations, and meetings that focused on 

describing the needs of homeless children and youth or the statutory requirements of MVHAA and 

Title I legislation. State coordinators focused their awareness-raising activities primarily on school 

districts and state Title I offices. A majority of state coordinators reported conducting awareness-raising 

activities with these entities several times a year or more (Exhibit 13). However, they were much less 

likely to report conducting awareness-raising activities with the staff of Runaway and Homeless Youth 

Act (RHYA) programs or the state school board.

Exhibit 13

Number of state coordinators who reported conducting awareness-raising activities

with staff of various entities at a particular frequency, 2010–11

Entities Several times 

a year or more

Once a 

year

Every few 

years Never

School districts 39 8 2 1

State Title I office 32 13 4 1

Other offices within the state 15 17 12 6

Other state government agencies 22 10 10 8

Head Start 13 19 9 9

Other local government agencies 17 12 10 11

HUD-funded programs 14 12 13 11

RHYA programs 6 8 11 25

State school board 1 11 11 27

Exhibit reads: Thirty-nine state coordinators reported conducting awareness-raising activities for school district 

staff several times a year or more.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 16 (n = 50).

19
District liaisons reported conducting awareness-raising activities regarding 

homeless children and youth more frequently with staff at schools and district 

offices than with other agencies and organizations. 

District liaisons most often reported conducting awareness-raising activities at least once a year 

with schools (72 percent), the district Title I office (65 percent), and other offices within the district 

(70 percent). Organizations that were less likely to be the target of awareness-raising activities included 

homeless shelters, RHYA programs, Head Start, or programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD); between 55 percent and 73 percent of district liaisons reported never 

conducting awareness-raising activities with the staff of these organizations (Exhibit 14). Fourteen 

percent of district liaisons reported conducting awareness-raising activities at institutions not 

mentioned on the survey; the most frequently mentioned were churches (11 district liaisons), charitable 

organizations (seven liaisons), and colleges and universities (seven liaisons).

Exhibit 14

Percentage of district liaisons who reported conducting awareness-raising activities with,

and disseminating materials to, various entities at particular frequencies, 2010–11

Conducted awareness-raising 

activities with the entity

Disseminated materials

to the entity

Entities

Conducted a wareness-raisi ng activities with the entity

Once a 

year or 

more

Conducted a wareness-raisi ng activities with the entity

Every 

few 

years Conducted a wareness-raisi ng activities with the entityNever

Disseminated materials t o the e ntity 

Once a 

year or 

more

Disseminated materials t o the e ntity 

Every 

few 

years Disseminated materials t o the e ntity Never

Schools 72% 20% 9% 86% 10% 4%

Other offices within district 70% 19% 12% 80% 12% 8%

District Title I office 65% 19% 16% 75% 10% 15%

District school board 39% 31% 30% 48% 25% 27%

Other local government agencies 36% 17% 47% 41% 11% 48%

Homeless shelters 32% 12% 55% 37% 10% 54%

Head Start 31% 13% 56% 37% 10% 53%

RHYA programs 18% 11% 71% 19% 10% 71%

HUD-funded programs 16% 11% 73% 21% 8% 70%

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of district liaisons reported conducting awareness-raising activities with school 

staff once a year or more.

NOTE: Respondents could check all that apply, so rows should not sum to 50.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, items 19 and 20 (n = 387).

20
District liaisons in cities reported conducting awareness-raising activities more 

often than those in suburban, town, or rural districts. 

Eighty-six percent or more of district liaisons in cities reported conducting awareness-raising activities at 

least once a year with staff at schools (92 percent), the district Title I office (86 percent), or other offices 

within the district (89 percent), compared with 56 to 72 percent of district liaisons in suburban, town, 

and rural districts. In addition, 60 percent of district liaisons in cities reported conducting awarenessraising activities with homeless shelters at least once a year, compared with 32 percent of district 

liaisons in the suburbs, 35 percent in towns, and 19 percent in rural districts.

As was the case for conducting awareness-raising activities, district liaisons 

reported disseminating materials most frequently to staff at schools, the district 

Title I office, and other offices within the district. 

Three-fourths or more of district liaisons reported disseminating materials at least once a year to 

schools (86 percent), the district Title I office (75 percent), and other offices within the district (80

percent). Materials were distributed least frequently to staff at RHYA programs and HUD-funded 

programs, with fewer than one-quarter of district liaisons reporting disseminating materials to these 

groups once a year or more (Exhibit 14). Some district liaisons volunteered that they disseminated 

materials to other organizations not listed on the survey, such as churches, charities, local businesses 

(e.g., grocery stores, laundromats, and bus terminals), and hotels and motels frequented by homeless 

children and their families. 

District liaisons reported disseminating materials more frequently than they 

conducted awareness-raising activities. 

In addition to conducting awareness-raising activities, states and districts also disseminated materials 

such as legislative guidelines, policy briefs, posters, and relevant research regarding the barriers to 

school success for homeless children and youth to staff of various programs and agencies operating in 

the state. State coordinators most frequently reported disseminating materials to school districts and to 

the state Title I office. Nearly all state coordinators reported disseminating materials to these groups at 

least once each year, and a few state coordinators reported disseminating materials as often as once a 

month. In 2010–11, 79 percent of district liaisons used materials disseminated by the state, and 61

percent of district liaisons used materials developed by the National Center for Homeless Education for 

raising awareness about the needs of homeless children and youth or the statutory requirements of 

MVHAA. 

21
Coordination and Collaboration 

When asked to choose from a list of eight areas of coordination and collaboration, state coordinators 

selected building programmatic linkages among various programs, agencies, or organizations that work 

in the service of homeless children and youth (36 coordinators), conducting joint monitoring visits to 

local districts (28 coordinators), and participating in an interagency task force or committee on 

homelessness (24 coordinators) as the areas of collaboration that most improved program 

administration and services (Exhibit 15).

Exhibit 15

Number of state coordinators who reported various areas of coordination and collaboration as

among the three strategies that most improved EHCY administration and services, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Thirty-six state coordinators reported that building programmatic linkages among organizations 

working in the service of homeless children and youth was among the three areas of coordination and 

collaboration that most improved program administration and services.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 18 (n = 50).

6

7

10

17

20

24

28

36

0 10 20 30 40 50

Identifying gaps in services to homeless students

Reviewing state policies or regulations that affect

homeless populations

Sharing the costs of transporting homeless students

to and from school

Identifying barriers that impede access to school for

homeless students

Sharing data on the homeless population

Participating in an interagency task force or

committee on homelessness

Conducting joint monitoring visits to districts

Building programmatic linkages among organizations

working to serve homeless students

22
All state coordinators reported that they facilitated collaboration and coordination efforts with the state 

Title I program (which is required under both the MVHAA and Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)). When asked which of 11 possible ways to 

facilitate collaboration and coordination between EHCY and Title I staff they used, the coordinators most 

frequently selected providing Title I and the EHCY personnel with cross-program trainings and materials 

to facilitate coordination with Title I (43 coordinators); articulating clearly how district EHCY liaisons can 

access Title I, Part A funds reserved for services to homeless students (43 coordinators);

6 and collecting 

and sharing data across EHCY and Title I on the needs of homeless children and youth and on effective 

programs to address these needs (39 coordinators) (Exhibit 16).

Exhibit 16

Number of state coordinators who reported using various approaches to facilitate

collaboration and coordination between the EHCY and Title I staff, 2010–11

Approaches Number of state 

coordinators

Providing Title I and EHCY personnel with cross-program trainings and materials 43

Articulating clearly how the local liaison can access Title I funds reserved for services to 

homeless students 43

Collecting and sharing data across the EHCY and Title I programs on the needs of homeless 

and other low-income students, along with information on effective programs to address 

these needs

39

Developing systems to facilitate cross-program collaborations on state and local plans for 

both the EHCY and Title I programs 36

Establishing processes for determining and approving district homeless reservations for 

Title I, Part A 36

Locating the EHCY and Title I offices in close proximity to facilitate cross-program 

communication 33

Ensuring that district liaisons are represented on the state Title I Committee of 

Practitioners 24

Involving the EHCY personnel in the creation of school-wide Title I programs, targeted 

assistance programs, and plans for school improvement 22

Including homeless parents in Title I parent involvement policies and created 

opportunities for homeless parents to be involved 14

Other 6

None of the above 0

Exhibit reads: Forty-three state coordinators reported that they sought to facilitate coordination between EHCY 

and Title I staff by providing Title I and EHCY personnel with cross-program trainings and materials.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 19 (n = 50).

6 Districts are required to reserve Title I, Part A funds as necessary to provide comparable Title I services to 

homeless students not attending Title I schools. In addition, districts may reserve Title I funds to provide 

educationally related support services to homeless children and youth that are not normally provided to Title I 

students, such as items of clothing, food, and medical and dental services. 

23

 
Half of district liaisons (50 percent) reported that they had coordinated with Title I staff to determine 

the amount and use of Title I funds reserved for services to homeless students, and 45 percent reported 

collecting and sharing data with Title I and EHCY staff on the needs of homeless and other low-income 

students.

District liaisons collaborated more frequently with their schools and with other 

offices in their school district than with local non-district service providers on 

issues related to homeless children and youth.

According to survey responses, district liaisons were most likely to identify schools (68 percent of district 

liaisons) and school district administrative offices (62 percent of district liaisons) as one of the three

groups with which they spent the most time collaborating and coordinating on issues related to 

addressing the educational needs of homeless children and youth. Very few district liaisons (2 percent or 

less) selected HUD-funded programs, RHYA programs, local businesses, or the local housing authority as 

the one of the groups with which they spent the most time collaborating and coordinating (Exhibit 17).

Exhibit 17

Percentage of district liaisons who reported spending the most time collaborating and coordinating

with various programs and organizations, 2010–11

Entities Percentage of 

district liaisons

Schools 68%

Offices within the school district other than Title I

(e.g., transportation, special education, accountability and assessment) 62%

Title I 38%

Homeless shelters 18%

Child and Family Services, or other local agency that serves the needs of children and families 21%

Social service organizations 17%

State education agency 9%

Homeless advocacy organizations 7%

Head Start programs 4%

Local school board 3%

Local health department 3%

Local housing authority 2%

Local businesses 2%

RHYA programs 2%

HUD-funded programs 1%

Other local government agencies 6%

Other state government agencies 2%

Other 9%

None of the above 1%

Exhibit reads: Sixty-eight percent of district liaisons reported that schools were one of the three types of groups 

with which they spent the most time collaborating and coordinating on issues related to addressing the 

educational needs of homeless children and youth.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 23 (n = 387).

24
District liaisons were most likely to report building programmatic linkages among 

programs, agencies, or organizations working to serve homeless children and youth 

as among the areas of collaboration that had most improved services to homeless 

children and youth (40 percent).

Other approaches most frequently reported by district liaisons were identifying barriers that impede 

access to school (36 percent), reviewing district policies or regulations that affect homeless populations 

(36 percent), and sharing the costs of transporting homeless students to and from school (35 percent) 

(Exhibit 18).

Exhibit 18

Percentage of district liaisons who reported various approaches to collaboration as

among the three that most improved services to homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Forty percent of district liaisons reported that collaborating to build programmatic linkages among 

organizations was among three of the areas of collaboration that most improved services to homeless children and 

youth.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 24 (n = 377). 

9%

10%

29%

29%

31%

35%

36%

36%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Determining shelter placements for homeless families

with school-age children

Conducting joint trainings

Sharing data on the homeless population

Participating in an interagency task force or

committee on homelessness

Identifying gaps in services to homeless students

Sharing the costs of transporting homeless students to

and from school

Reviewing district policies or regulations that affect

homeless populations

Identifying barriers that impede access to school for

homeless students

Building programmatic linkages among organizations

working to serve homeless students

25
District liaisons’ views on the approaches that had most improved services for 

homeless students varied significantly among large, medium, and small districts.

Large districts were more likely to report that one of the most effective areas of collaboration was 

building programmatic linkages among organizations, while small districts were more likely to indicate 

reviewing district policies or regulations. District liaisons from districts with large homeless student 

populations of 500 or more were significantly more likely to report that building programmatic linkages 

among various programs, agencies, or organizations was among the most effective areas of 

collaboration (65 percent) than were those from districts with 20 to 499 students (43 percent) and those 

with fewer than 20 homeless students (24 percent).

District liaisons in districts with fewer than 20 homeless students were significantly more likely to report 

that reviewing district policies or regulations that affect homeless populations was among the most 

effective areas of collaboration to improve services (56 percent) than were district liaisons from districts 

with 20 to 499 homeless students (32 percent) and district liaisons from districts with more than 500 

homeless students (24 percent). District liaisons from districts with 20 to 499 homeless students were 

significantly more likely than those in districts with 500 or more homeless students to report that 

sharing the cost of transporting homeless children and youth was among the most effective areas of 

collaboration to improve services (40 percent vs. 19 percent) (Exhibit 19).

Exhibit 19

Percentage of district liaisons reporting various approaches to collaboration as among 

the three that most improved services to homeless children and youth,

by number of homeless students enrolled in the district, 2010–11

Homeless student

enrollment

Building programmatic 

linkages among 

organizations

Reviewing district 

policies or regulations

Sharing costs of 

transporting 

homeless students

500 students or more 65% 24% 19%

20–499 students 43% 32% 40%

Fewer than 20 students 24% 56% 34%

Exhibit reads: In districts with 500 or more homeless students, 65 percent of district liaisons ranked building 

programmatic linkages among programs, agencies, or organizations as among the three approaches to 

collaboration that had most improved services to homeless children and youth.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 24 (n = 345).

26
IV. State Monitoring and Technical Assistance

A major part of a state coordinator’s responsibilities under the EHCY program is to monitor school 

districts’ compliance with EHCY program requirements and to provide technical assistance to help

districts implement the EHCY program and address barriers to school success for homeless children and 

youth.

Monitoring may be done through in-person site visits or through phone calls and written 

correspondence (i.e., desk monitoring). Increasingly, states are using integrated monitoring visits to 

school districts that examine EHCY issues at the same time as other federal or state programs. Technical 

assistance may include responding to questions from district liaisons and other district staff, conducting 

trainings for district liaisons and other district staff, and providing written materials to help districts 

improve services for homeless children and youth.

State Monitoring Activities 

All state coordinators reported monitoring EHCY districts, and 48 state coordinators also reported 

monitoring non-EHCY districts in some way.

State coordinators were more likely to report using site visits and integrated 

monitoring visits in 2012 than in 1998. 

Forty-three state coordinators reported monitoring subgrantees through site visits in the 2012 survey, 

up from 37 in the 1998 survey, and 33 reported monitoring subgrantees through integrated monitoring 

visits in 2012, up from 27 in 1998. Thirty-four states reported monitoring subgrantees through desk 

monitoring, compared with 37 in 1998 (Exhibit 20). In 2012, most states that used desk monitoring did 

this in addition to site visit monitoring (29 states); three state coordinators reported using desk 

monitoring but not site visits, and 16 reported monitoring through site visits but not desk monitoring.

The number of state coordinators who reported monitoring non-subgrantee 

districts’ efforts to reduce educational barriers for homeless children and youth

through site visits and desk monitoring more than doubled from 1998 to 2012.

In 2012, 26 state coordinators reported monitoring non-subgrantee districts through site visits, up from 

nine in 1998. Similarly, 26 state coordinators reported monitoring non-subgrantee districts through desk 

monitoring in 2012, up from 11 in 1998. In addition, 29 state coordinators reported using integrated 

monitoring visits to monitor non-subgrantee districts in 2012, up from 23 in 1998.

27
State coordinators reported making more frequent site visits to EHCY districts than 

to non-subgrantee districts.

Among the 47 state coordinators who reported conducting in-person district visits, 44 conducted visits 

to EHCY districts on a routine cycle, and 32 conducted visits to non-subgrantee districts on a routine 

cycle. The visit cycle for EHCY districts tended to be shorter than the cycle for non-subgrantee districts; 

39 state coordinators visited subgrantee districts at least once every two years, while 19 state 

coordinators visited non-subgrantee districts with the same regularity. Besides conducting site visits on 

a routine cycle, 35 state coordinators reported conducting site visits to EHCY districts and 34 reported 

conducting site visits to non-subgrantee districts because the district had problems meeting program 

requirements or because the district requested a visit. 

Exhibit 20

Number of state coordinators who reported using various techniques to monitor

EHCY and non-EHCY districts, 2012 and 1998

EHCY districts Non-EHCY districts

Monitoring methods and procedures

EHCY di stricts

2012

EHCY di stricts

1998

Non-EH CY di stricts

2012

Non-EH CY di stricts

1998

Monitoring methods

Visits to local school districts 43 37 26 9

Phone calls or written correspondence (i.e., desk monitoring) 34 37 26 11

Integrated monitoring visits to school districts that address 

EHCY and other federal or state programs 33 27 29 23

Procedures carried out through monitoring

Assurances of compliance with regulations are required 41 37 25 13

Progress reports are required 23 39 5 2

Progress reports are requested 13 17 6 5

Efforts are not monitored 0 1 2 11

Exhibit reads: In 2012, 43 state coordinators reported monitoring EHCY districts through visits to local school 

districts, compared with 37 states that reported this in 1998.

SOURCES: 2012 data are from the State Coordinator Survey, item 30 (n = 50); 1998 data are from Phillips, Wodatch, & Kelliher (2002) (n = 50).

28
Thirty-nine out of 50 state coordinators had cited one or more districts for noncompliance with EHCY requirements.

Compliance issues included practices for identifying homeless children and youth (13 states), addressing 

barriers to school success for homeless children and youth (12 states), and identifying and raising 

awareness of the needs and legal rights of homeless children and youth (11 states).

When state coordinators cited districts for non-compliance, they followed up in a variety of ways. Of the 39

state coordinators who reported notifying a district for non-compliance, 36 reported following up with 

these districts by sending district liaisons a letter with a mandate to address the problem(s) and a 

requirement to document the resolution. Twenty-three reported conducting a follow-up monitoring visit, 

three reported following up with a letter with no mandate, and three reported withholding funds

(Exhibit 21).

Exhibit 21

Number of state coordinators who reported using various methods

to follow up with districts for non-compliance, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Among 39 state coordinators who had cited one or more districts for non-compliance, 36 reported 

following up with a letter with a mandate to address the problem.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 36 (n = 39). 

Of the three coordinators who reported withholding funds, one explained that he or she withheld funds 

from a district because it was out of compliance with EHCY requirements in numerous areas, including 

identifying homeless children and youth, addressing the barriers to school success for homeless children 

and youth, and identifying and raising awareness of the needs and legal rights of homeless children and 

youth.

3

3

23

36

0 10 20 30 40 50

Withholding of funds

Letter with no mandate

Remonitoring

Letter with mandate to address problem

29
Technical Assistance

The EHCY program requires state coordinators to provide technical assistance and support to all school 

districts, and most state coordinators (42) reported that this was among the three responsibilities on 

which they spent the most time.

Fourteen state coordinators used a regional approach to provide technical 

assistance, support, or other services to school districts. 

These 14 coordinators were from states with, on average, larger student populations than were 

coordinators from states not using a regional approach. Eleven of the 14 state coordinators who 

reported providing technical assistance through a regional approach also reported providing EHCY funds 

to districts through a regional approach.

Almost all state coordinators reported providing technical assistance to EHCY

districts on school enrollment, transportation within the district, and informing 

district staff about the EHCY program and its requirements.

In addition, 45 state coordinators reported providing technical assistance to non-EHCY districts on school 

enrollment and understanding the requirements of the EHCY program (Exhibit 22).

State coordinators reported a need for more federal guidance or resources in the following areas:

enhancing parental involvement (31 state coordinators), developing additional learning opportunities 

delivered as part of the school day (26 state coordinators), transportation across district boundaries (25 

state coordinators), and coordinating with Title I (25 state coordinators) (Exhibit 22).

District liaisons were most likely to report needing state assistance on 

understanding the requirements of MVHAA, understanding the legal responsibilities 

of the district liaison, and collecting, using, and reporting data on homeless 

students.

Fifty-six percent of district liaisons reported needing state assistance on understanding the 

requirements of MVHAA, 55 percent reported needing assistance to understand the legal 

responsibilities of the district liaison, and 44 percent reported needing assistance for collecting, using, 

and reporting data on homeless students (Exhibit 23). These three topics were also the most frequently 

reported topics on which district liaisons reported that they actually received technical assistance from 

their state. About two-thirds to three-quarters of district liaisons who reported receiving state technical 

assistance in any given area found the assistance to be very useful. 

30
Exhibit 22

Number of state coordinators who reported that they provided technical assistance to districts on

various topics and that they need more federal guidance or resources on those topics, 2010–11

Topics for technical assistance

Provided

to EHCY 

districts

Provided to 

non-EHCY 

districts

Need more

federal 

guidance or 

resources 

Addressing barriers related to school enrollment (e.g., residency 

requirements, immunization requirements) 49 45 12

Addressing barriers related to transportation within the district 49 43 16

Understanding the requirements of MVHAA 48 45 8

Informing district personnel about MVHAA and its requirements 48 42 9

Addressing barriers related to transportation across district 

boundaries 48 43 25

Understanding the district liaison’s legal responsibilities for 

homelessness issues 47 44 10

Identifying homeless students 47 44 13

Collecting, using, and reporting data about homeless students 47 41 25

Coordinating with Title I (e.g., cross-program collaborations on 

state and local plans for both the EHCY program and Title I, 

cross-program trainings and materials)

47 43 25

Informing school personnel about MVHAA and its requirements 46 43 9

Addressing barriers related to school attendance (e.g., poor health, 

lack of adequate clothing and school supplies) 45 40 15

Addressing barriers related to school success (e.g., frequent 

mobility, lack of appropriate study area to complete homework) 45 40 15

Informing parents and students about MVHAA and their rights 

under the law 40 38 14

Accessing social services to support homeless students 38 36 21

Coordinating with external education service providers 

(e.g., after-school providers, supplemental tutoring services) 29 27 21

Enhancing parental involvement 29 27 31

Developing additional learning opportunities delivered as part of 

the school day 28 23 26

Exhibit reads: Forty-nine state coordinators reported providing technical assistance to EHCY districts on addressing 

barriers related to school enrollment; 45 reported providing this assistance to non-EHCY districts. Twelve 

coordinators said that they needed more federal guidance or resources on this topic.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 28 (n = 50).

31
Exhibit 23

Percentage of district liaisons who reported needing and receiving

state technical assistance on various topics, 2010–11

Topics for technical assistance

Needed 

technical 

assistance

Received 

technical 

assistance 

Understanding the requirements of MVHAA 56% 67%

Understanding the district liaison’s legal responsibilities for homelessness issues 55% 65%

Collecting, using, and reporting data about homeless students 44% 48%

Addressing barriers related to transportation across district boundaries 39% 42%

Identifying homeless students 39% 47%

Addressing barriers related to school enrollment (e.g., residency requirements,

immunization requirements) 38% 44%

Informing district personnel about MVHAA and its requirements 33% 40%

Informing parents and students about MVHAA and their rights under the law 32% 38%

Addressing barriers related to transportation within the district 31% 35%

Informing school personnel about MVHAA and its requirements 31% 39%

Addressing barriers related to school attendance (e.g., poor health, lack of adequate 

clothing and school supplies) 27% 30%

Coordinating with Title I (e.g., cross-program trainings and materials for Title I and 

EHCY personnel) 26% 28%

Addressing barriers related to school success (e.g., frequent mobility, lack of 

appropriate study area for homework) 23% 27%

Accessing social services to support homeless students 18% 21%

Enhancing involvement opportunities for parents of homeless children and youth 18% 18%

Developing additional learning opportunities delivered as part of the school day to 

homeless children and youth 17% 18%

Coordinating with external education service providers (e.g., after-school providers, 

supplemental tutoring services) 16% 19%

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of district liaisons indicated needing technical assistance for understanding the 

requirements of MVHAA, while 67 percent indicated receiving state technical assistance on this topic.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 26 (n = 314–363, depending on the variable).

32
Challenges for State Program Administration 

Few state coordinators reported barriers to administering the EHCY program.

Ten state coordinators reported a lack of federal guidance on ways to address barriers to school success 

for homeless students (Exhibit 24). Two state coordinators reported a lack of federal guidance regarding 

ways to identify homeless students. Of the 23 state coordinators who reported “other” barriers, more 

than two-thirds (16 states) indicated that a lack of funding, resources, or time were barriers. 

Exhibit 24

Number of state coordinators who reported various issues as

barriers to administering the EHCY program, 2010–11

Barriers Number of state 

coordinators

Lack of federal guidance regarding ways to address barriers to school success for homeless 

children and youth 10

Legislative requirement to coordinate and collaborate with other organizations and agencies 

to provide and improve services to homeless children and youth 7

Lack of federal support regarding understanding the requirements of the MVHAA 5

Data requirements from the Department regarding the educational needs of homeless 

children and youth 5

Lack of federal guidance regarding awareness-raising efforts 5

Lack of federal guidance regarding ways to identify homeless children and youth 2

Other 23

Exhibit reads: Ten state coordinators identified a lack of federal guidance on ways to address barriers to school 

success for homeless students as a barrier to administering the EHCY program.

NOTE: Respondents could check all that apply.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 29 (n = 50).

33
34
V. Collecting Data on Homeless Children and Youth

The EHCY program requires states to collect and report data on the status and needs of homeless 

children and youth. More specifically, the MVHAA gives the Department authority to collect information 

from states that the Department determines is necessary to assess the educational needs of homeless 

children and youth. States are required to collect data for both subgrantees and non-subgrantees on the 

number of homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools by grade level and the primary 

nighttime residences of homeless children and youth, as well as the number of districts that report such 

data. In addition, states must collect data from subgrantee districts on the homeless students’ 

achievement on state assessments, as well as student characteristics (such as the number with 

disabilities and with limited English proficiency).

Data Collected

State coordinators reported that their states collect not only federally mandated data

but also additional data that are not federally mandated, from both subgrantees and 

non-subgrantees.

Over 60 percent of the states reported that they collected federally mandated data on homeless 

student characteristics from non-subgrantees (31 to 38 states, depending on the student characteristic) 

(Exhibit 25). In addition, states often reported collecting additional variables related to homeless 

children and youth, such as graduation or dropout rates (31 states), attendance rates (24 states), and 

mobility rates (9 states). Some of these states collected these additional data from subgrantees only, but 

many also collected them from non-subgrantees (seven to 25 states, depending on the variable). The 

number of state coordinators who reported collecting data from non-subgrantee districts increased

from the 1998 to 2012 surveys. The largest increase was in collecting achievement data from nonsubgrantees (from six state coordinators in 1998 to 41 in 2012).

State coordinators reported using data from other agencies to supplement and verify the data gathered 

through the EHCY program. Forty-one state coordinators reported using data collected from Title I, 34 

reported using data collected from other offices within the state educational agency, 30 reported using 

data collected from homeless shelters and advocacy organizations, 28 reported using data collected 

from other state government agencies, and 27 reported using data collected from Head Start programs 

for such purposes (Exhibit 26). One difficulty that some state coordinators experienced in using other 

data sources was that different state agencies often used different definitions of homelessness. For 

example, HUD defines homelessness differently than the EHCY does, making it difficult to compare the 

two.7

7 The EHCY program’s definition of homelessness includes children and youth who are sharing the housing of other 

persons because of loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason, while HUD’s does not. 

35

 
Exhibit 25

Requirements for collecting certain data from EHCY and non-EHCY districts, and number of

state coordinators who reported collecting data where not required, 2010–11

Type of data EHCY districts Non-EHCY districts

Number of homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools, 

by grade level Federally mandated Federally mandated

Primary nighttime residences of homeless children and youth Federally mandated Federally mandated

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state English/language arts 

and mathematics assessments

Federally mandated Federally mandated

Number of homeless preschool-aged children under the 

jurisdiction of the district Federally mandated Federally mandated

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are 

unaccompanied Federally mandated 38

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities Federally mandated 33

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited English 

proficient Federally mandated 33

Number of homeless children and youth who are migratory Federally mandated 31

Graduation or dropout rates 31 25

Attendance rates 24 23

Mobility rates 9 7

Number of districts that reported data Federally mandated Federally mandated

Exhibit reads: States are required to report the number of homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools, 

by grade level, in both EHCY and non-EHCY districts.

NOTES: For data on preschool-aged homeless children, the Department requires states to collect data on the number of children ages 3–5 who 

are not enrolled in kindergarten. The term “unaccompanied youth” means a youth or child who is attending school but is not in the physical 

custody of a parent or guardian.

Source: State Coordinator Survey, items 7 and 9 (n = 50).

36
Exhibit 26

Number of state coordinators who reported using supplemental data sources, 2010–11

Data sources Number of state 

coordinators

Title I 41

Other education offices within the state (e.g., special education, assessment) 34

Homeless shelters, homeless advocacy organizations, etc. 30

Other non-educational state government agencies 28

Head Start 27

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 16

Local public housing, health, or human service agency 16

Other local government agencies 14

U.S. Census Bureau 13

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs 13

Other 8

No independent data source used for this purpose 3

Exhibit reads: Forty-one state coordinators reported using data collected by Title I to supplement data gathered 

through the EHCY program.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 12 (n = 50).

Thirty-six state coordinators reported that their state data system uses unique student identifiers to link 

data collected on homeless children and youth with individual student outcome data, such as scores on 

state assessments and school attendance. This enables these states to look at the performance of 

homeless students separately from that of other students.

37
Burden and Usefulness of Data

Fewer than half of state coordinators reported that it was burdensome to collect 

various data elements from EHCY subgrantees and non-subgrantees or that the data 

collected were not useful.

For the data deemed a burden to collect, more state coordinators found it a burden to collect from nonsubgrantees than from subgrantees (Exhibit 27). For the data deemed not useful, the largest number of 

state coordinators selected data on the educational support services provided to homeless children and 

youth (12 coordinators), the number of homeless and youth who are migratory (10 coordinators), and 

the barriers to school success for homeless children and youth (10 coordinators).

8

Exhibit 27

Number of state coordinators who reported that certain types of data collected on

homeless children and youth were burdensome to collect and were not useful, 2010–11

Type of data

Burdensome 

to collect from 

subgrantees 

Burdensome to 

collect from nonsubgrantees 

Data not 

useful

Barriers to school success for homeless children and youth 8 18 10

Educational support services provided to homeless children 

and youth 7 17 12

Number of homeless children and youth who are children of 

migratory workers 5 7 10

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state 

language arts assessment 5 7 6

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state 

math assessment 5 7 6

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state language arts 

assessment 

5 7 5

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state math assessment 5 7 5

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are 

unaccompanied 4 9 2

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited 

English proficient 3 10 9

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities 3 7 4

Exhibit reads: Eight state coordinators reported that data on barriers to success for homeless children and youth 

were burdensome to collect from subgrantees, and 18 found them burdensome to collect from non-subgrantees.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 8 (n = 49).

8 Beginning with the 2010–11 school year, the Department revised the data reporting requirements to exclude 

data on support services and barriers for homeless children and youth.

38

 
More district liaisons than state coordinators considered it a burden to collect 

various data elements or thought the data collected were not useful.

District liaisons were most likely to report that data collection was burdensome for data on barriers to 

school success for homeless children and youth (37 percent)9 and the number of homeless children and 

youth who scored at or above proficient on the state English/language arts and mathematics

assessments (37 percent and 35 percent, respectively). District liaison perceptions that the data were 

not useful were reported most frequently for data on the number of homeless children and youth who 

are children of migratory workers (44 percent) and the numbers of children who took the state 

English/language arts and mathematics assessments (33 percent and 30 percent, respectively)

(Exhibit 28).

Exhibit 28

Percentage of district liaisons who reported that certain types of data collected on

homeless children and youth were burdensome to collect and were not useful, 2010–11

Type of data Burdensome 

to collect

Data not 

useful

Barriers to school success for homeless children and youth 37% 18%

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who scored at or above 

proficient on the state English/language arts assessment 37% 26%

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who scored at or above 

proficient on the state mathematics assessment 35% 25%

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state English/language arts 

assessment

33% 33%

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state mathematics

assessment 

32% 30%

Educational support services provided to homeless children and youth 30% 14%

Number of homeless children and youth who are children of migratory workers 28% 44%

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are unaccompanied 20% 20%

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities 15% 17%

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited English proficient 11% 23%

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of district liaisons reported that the data on barriers to school success for 

homeless children and youth were burdensome to collect, and 18 percent found these data not useful.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 10 (n = 378).

9 The requirement for collecting data on barriers to success was discontinued in 2010–11.

39

 
State coordinators were most likely to use district-level data to design technical 

assistance and to monitor district compliance with the EHCY program.

Forty-six state coordinators reported using district-level data to design technical assistance, and 45 

reported using the data to monitor district compliance with the EHCY program (Exhibit 29). 

Exhibit 29

Number of state coordinators who reported using district-level data

on homeless children and youth for various purposes, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Forty-six state coordinators reported using district-level data to design technical assistance to help 

districts meet EHCY requirements.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 11 (n = 50). 

17

18

18

21

27

33

45

46

0 10 20 30 40 50

Monitoring individual school compliance with the

EHCY program

Applying for a grant (either federal or other)

Communicating with parents of homeless students

Assisting districts with conducting their own needs

assessment

Communicating with elected officials

Communicating with community members

Monitoring district compliance with the EHCY

program

Designing technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one

assistance, training, providing information) to help

districts meet EHCY program requirements

40
VI. Barriers to School Success for Homeless Children and Youth

States and districts are responsible for identifying barriers, raising awareness of barriers, and 

coordinating efforts to address barriers to school success for homeless children and youth.

State coordinators and district liaisons reported that student mobility was among 

the most significant barriers to school success for homeless children and youth.

From a list of six potential barriers to school success, 72 percent of state coordinators and 78 percent of 

district liaisons identified frequent mobility between schools and districts as among the most significant 

barriers (Exhibit 30). Districts attempted to address this barrier by providing transportation to homeless 

children and youth so that they could attend their school of origin, as required by MVHAA.

10

Exhibit 30

Percentage of state coordinators and district liaisons who reported various issues as among

the three most significant barriers to school success for homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of state coordinators and 78 percent of district liaisons reported that frequent 

mobility from school to school was one of the three most significant barriers to school success for homeless 

children and youth.

SOURCE: State Coordinator Survey, item 14 (n = 50), and District Liaison Survey, item 17 (n = 368). 

10 In the EHCY law, the term “school of origin” is defined as “the school that the child or youth attended when 

permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled.”

4%

22%

41%

31%

19%

78%

8%

36%

34%

36%

68%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lack of adequate school supplies

Behavior problems

Inability to complete school assignments due to

lack of an appropriate study area

Poor health/inadequate medical care resulting

in poor school attendance

Lack of awareness and sensitivity among school

administrators and teachers to the specific

educational needs of homeless students

Frequent mobility from school to school

State coordinators

District liaisons

41

 
State coordinators were more likely than district liaisons to report a lack of awareness and sensitivity 

among school administrators and teachers to the educational needs of homeless students. Sixty-eight 

percent of state coordinators reported this as among the three most significant barriers, compared with 

19 percent of district liaisons.

The barriers to school enrollment and attendance for homeless students that were 

most commonly identified by district liaisons were transportation and family or 

student preoccupation with survival needs. 

When asked to choose from a list of eight possible barriers to school enrollment for homeless students,

district liaisons most frequently identified the lack of transportation to and from school (53 percent),

family preoccupation with survival needs (48 percent), delays in obtaining school records (41 percent), 

and residency requirements for school enrollment (34 percent) as among the three most significant 

barriers to school enrollment (Exhibit 31).

Exhibit 31

Percentage of district liaisons who reported various issues as among the three

most significant barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Fifty-three percent of district liaisons reported that transportation to and from school was one of 

the three most significant barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 16 (n = 367). 

15%

16%

18%

27%

34%

41%

48%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Immunization requirements for school enrollment

Delays in obtaining immunization records

Family/student resistance

Gardianship requirements for school enrollment

Residency requirements for school enrollment

Delays in obtaining school records

Family preoccupied with survival needs

Transportation to and from school

42
When asked to choose from a list of six possible barriers to school attendance for homeless children and 

youth, district liaisons most frequently identified family or student preoccupation with survival needs 

(82 percent), lack of transportation to and from school (43 percent), inability to complete school 

assignments because of the lack of an appropriate study area (42 percent), lack of adequate clothing 

and supplies (30 percent), and poor health or inadequate medical care (29 percent) as among the most 

significant barriers to school attendance (Exhibit 32).

Exhibit 32

Percentage of district liaisons who reported various issues as among the three

most significant barriers to school attendance for homeless children and youth, 2010–11

Exhibit reads: Eighty-two percent of district liaisons reported that family or student preoccupation with survival 

needs was one of the three most significant barriers to school attendance for homeless children and youth.

SOURCE: District Liaison Survey, item 15 (n = 368). 

7%

29%

30%

42%

43%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ostracized/stigmatized at school for being homeless

Poor health/inadequate medical care

Lack of adequate clothing and school supplies

Inability to complete school assignments due to lack of

an appropriate (e.g., quiet) study area

Lack of transportation to and from school

Family or student preoccupied with survival needs

43
44
References

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115, 516 (2009).

Anderson, L. M., Janger, M. I., & Panton, K. L. M. (1995). An evaluation of state and local efforts to serve 

the educational needs of homeless children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. Available 

at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED385667.pdf.

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended, Title VII, Subtitle B, 42 U.S.C. § 11431-

11435 (2001).

National Center for Homeless Education. (2012). Education for Homeless Children and Youths program: 

Analysis of 2010–2011 federal data collection and three-year comparison. Greensboro, NC:

University of South Carolina. Available 

at http://center.serve.org/nche/downloads/data_comp_0909-1011.pdf.

Phillips, C. M., Wodatch, J. K., & Kelliher, C. T. (2002). The Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

program: Learning to succeed. Volume 1: Reducing barriers for homeless children and youth for 

access and achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under 

Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. Available 

at https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/learnsucceed/volume1.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). EDFacts state data 

submission, Homeless students enrolled and homeless students served (McKinney-Vento), 

2010–11. State-level data are available at http://eddataexpress.ed.gov/. 

45
46
Appendix A

Study Methodology

Sample Selection

To create the sampling frame from which to select the sample of districts, the study team identified, 

with the help of the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE) and state homeless coordinators, 

all districts receiving EHCY funding in 2010–11. In states that used a regional approach to funding 

districts, individual districts within consortia and intermediary units were included in the sampling 

frame. The sampling frame was defined to exclude districts that did not directly educate students (e.g., 

regional education service agencies), districts that educated special populations of students (e.g., 

vocational districts), and districts that were charter agencies. In total, 3,078 unique districts met the 

study criteria and constituted the initial sampling frame of EHCY districts for the study. 

From this sampling frame of 3,078 EHCY districts, the study team selected a representative sample, after

first selecting the 50 largest districts with certainty. Because these very large districts have significant 

populations of homeless children and youth, and likely have uniquely large infrastructures with which to 

address the needs of homeless children and youth, they were a population of districts that deserved

special attention in this evaluation. After selecting the 50 largest districts from the population, the study 

team then randomly selected an additional 401 districts, for a total initial sample of 451 districts. 

Originally, the district survey was sent to 451 district liaisons, but three districts were later removed 

from the sample because they had been merged together into a single district. The resulting sample of 

448 districts allowed the study to generalize to the entire population of 3,075 EHCY districts.

Because the sample included all of the 50 largest school districts in the country, the sample districts had 

average numbers of students and homeless students (means) that were considerably higher than the 

means for the entire population of districts from which the sample was drawn. For this reason, this 

report sometimes presents medians, when appropriate, as a measure of central tendency.

The sample of 448 districts had a median enrollment size of 3,056 students, compared with a median of 

2,413 across all districts in the sampling frame (N = 3,078). The mean enrollment size for the sample was 

22,848 students, compared with a mean of 8,300 for all EHCY districts. Districts in cities were more likely 

to be included in the sample than the population (18 percent vs. 14 percent) and rural districts were less 

likely to be included (33 percent vs. 37 percent) (Exhibit A.1).

47
Exhibit A.1

Distribution of EHCY districts in the sample and the sampling frame, by urbanicity, 2010–11

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 2010–11. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Collection

The Department and NCHE created a list of state coordinators and their relevant contact information to 

take the state survey. The Department and NCHE, along with state coordinators, helped identify the 

district liaisons and their contact information in EHCY districts in the sample. They also identified six state 

coordinators to provide initial feedback on the state and district surveys for the evaluators. Study team 

members spoke with these state coordinators at a state coordinators’ meeting in February 2011. During 

March and April 2011, the district survey was piloted with nine district liaisons.

Survey administration began in February 2012, when survey instructions and links to the online survey 

instrument were e-mailed to the selected respondents. The survey link in each e-mail was tailored to 

each respondent, allowing the study team to link survey responses to existing demographic information 

about each state or district. States and districts were also allowed to complete a paper version of the 

surveys, upon request; six districts submitted paper surveys. Response rates were 96 percent for the 

state survey (50 respondents, including 49 states and the District of Columbia) and 87 percent for the 

district survey (388 district liaison respondents). The district survey response rate was higher for the 50 

largest districts (96 percent) and lower for the randomly-selected districts (85 percent).

33 37

16

18

33

32

18 14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sample

(n=448)

All EHCY Districts

(N=3,075)

City

Suburb

Town

Rural

48
Data Analysis

The study team weighted the responses to the district survey to account for the selection with certainty 

of the 50 EHCY districts with the largest enrollments and to ensure that district survey results were 

representative of the population of EHCY-funded districts. Each of the 50 largest districts was assigned a 

survey weight of 1, while the randomly selected districts were assigned a weight of 7.6005. To 

determine the survey weight for the randomly selected ECHY districts, the total population of districts 

minus the 50 largest (N = 3,025) was divided by the random sample (n = 398). For the final analyses, the 

assigned weight for each district was normalized to preserve the size of the sample.11

Cross-tabulations examined differences in implementation associated with such variables as district 

enrollment size, urbanicity (city, suburb, town, rural), and size of homeless population. For analyses of 

differences between groups, the appropriate statistical test (i.e., Chi-square, t-test, or ANOVA) was used, 

and differences were reported only if they were statistically significant using a significance level of 0.05.

Districts were classified into three size categories based on total K–12 enrollment: small (0 to 999 

students enrolled), medium (1,000 to 9,999 students), and large (10,000 or more students). Districts 

were also classified by the number of homeless students present: small number of homeless students 

(1 to 19 homeless students), medium number of homeless students (20 to 499), and large number of 

homeless students (more than 500 homeless students). Enrollment and homeless student data were 

based on the EDFacts database. Thirty-seven of the 388 responding districts had not reported data on 

their number of homeless students to EDFacts and were not included in these analyses.

States were classified into two size categories, each with 25 states. States with 191 districts or fewer were 

considered to have a small number of districts, while those with 192 districts or more were considered to 

have a large number of districts.

For the analysis of federal funding trends for the EHCY program, inflation-adjusted dollars were calculated 

using the GDP deflators used for federal budget tables.12 The appropriations amounts for each year 

(actual and adjusted) are provided in Exhibit A.2. State allocations for FY 2010 and FY 2013 are provided 

in Exhibit A.3.

11 To normalize the weights, the study team assigned each district the appropriate weight (1 for a district in the 50 

largest, 7.6005 for all other districts), then divided the weights by the mean weight of the entire sample (7.4796). 

This yielded the final normalized weights of 0.1474 for the 50 largest districts and 1.1204 for all other districts.

12 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, 

Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist.pdf.

49

 
Exhibit A.2

Federal appropriations for the EHCY program, in nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted (FY 2013) dollars, 

from FY 1988 through FY 2013

Federal Fiscal Year Nominal Dollars Constant FY 2013 Dollars

FY 1988 4,787,000 8,452,270

FY 1989 4,834,000 8,216,411

FY 1990 4,935,000 8,090,500

FY 1991 7,211,590 11,390,268

FY 1992 24,997,913 38,480,847

FY 1993 24,798,035 37,351,764

FY 1994 25,470,000 37,569,838

FY 1995 28,811,000 41,615,889

FY 1996 23,000,000 32,593,436

FY 1997 25,000,000 34,785,933

FY 1998 28,800,000 39,570,732

FY 1999 28,800,000 39,053,645

FY 2000 28,800,000 38,294,256

FY 2001 35,000,000 45,470,020

FY 2002 50,000,000 63,897,591

FY 2003 54,642,500 68,433,281

FY 2004 59,646,000 72,856,188

FY 2005 62,496,000 73,932,768

FY 2006 61,871,040 70,786,693

FY 2007 61,871,040 68,752,057

FY 2008 64,066,851 69,577,788

FY 2009 65,427,000 70,153,305

FY 2010 65,427,000 69,448,310

FY 2011 65,296,146 67,884,121

FY 2012 65,172,591 66,533,634

FY 2013 65,173,000 65,173,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

50
Exhibit A.3

U.S. Department of Education allocations to states and other agencies for the EHCY program, 

in nominal dollars, for FY 2010 and FY 2013

State FY 2010 FY 2013

Total 65,427,000 61,771,052

Alabama 973,459 948,420

Alaska 167,945 166,616

Arizona 1,364,296 1,372,486

Arkansas 694,429 628,905

California 7,965,987 6,856,136

Colorado 695,305 620,653

Connecticut 505,558 499,502

Delaware 185,558 186,204

District of Columbia 216,333 184,482

Florida 3,283,463 3,274,156

Georgia 2,319,108 2,106,646

Hawaii 187,868 230,069

Idaho 221,224 244,866

Illinois 2,696,886 2,857,927

Indiana 1,101,072 1,100,098

Iowa 352,694 399,144

Kansas 461,590 427,021

Kentucky 1,027,704 921,811

Louisiana 1,348,735 1,228,832

Maine 235,157 215,653

Maryland 820,691 851,922

Massachusetts 970,684 921,747

Michigan 2,364,749 2,143,532

Minnesota 577,469 639,320

Mississippi 901,882 726,604

Missouri 1,072,052 968,886

Montana 199,226 188,752

Nebraska 273,114 287,280

Nevada 414,731 481,627

New Hampshire 177,370 175,858

New Jersey 1,330,155 1,219,108

New Mexico 507,170 483,644

New York 4,933,923 4,635,804

North Carolina 1,712,066 1,737,717

North Dakota 163,568 154,428

Ohio 2,367,349 2,479,861

Oklahoma 732,592 635,907

Oregon 666,557 671,176

Pennsylvania 2,578,809 2,345,862

Rhode Island 217,815 207,507

South Carolina 975,770 927,738

South Dakota 194,420 183,247

Tennessee 1,231,190 1,193,907

Texas 6,008,405 5,828,336

Utah 317,804 394,145

Vermont 163,568 154,428

Virginia 1,133,205 978,323

51
Exhibit A.3

U.S. Department of Education allocations to states and other agencies for the EHCY program, 

in nominal dollars, for FY 2010 and FY 2013 (continued)

State FY 2010 FY 2013

Washington 862,249 919,172

West Virginia 402,407 410,716

Wisconsin 821,852 941,469

Wyoming 163,568 154,428

American Samoa 16,829 16,367

Guam 19,871 21,263

Northern Mariana Islands 6,113 11,388

Puerto Rico 2,524,772 1,685,911

Virgin Islands 22,614 12,753

Indian set-aside 654,270 617,711

Undistributed (non-state allocations) 921,750 893,581

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.

52
Appendix B

Survey Instruments

53
54
State Coordinator Survey

This survey is part of an evaluation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Program as 

authorized under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subtitle B, as amended 

(McKinney-Vento Act). Its purpose is to collect information on implementation of the program in your 

state. The survey will ask about the collection and use of data on homeless children and youth, the 

barriers facing homeless children and youth, and efforts to address those barriers. The findings will 

provide useful information on the program to the United States Department of Education, Congress, and 

practitioners. As a recipient of an EHCY Program grant, your participation in the survey is required 

under ESEA, Sec. 9804(a)(4).

Responses to this survey will be used for statistical purposes only. The reports prepared for this study 

will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific state, 

district, or individual. The evaluator will not provide information that identifies a subject, district, or 

state to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Every effort will be made to 

maintain confidentiality of the information collected.

We estimate that this survey will take approximately 35 minutes to complete. You may fill out the 

survey all at once, or over multiple sessions. If you fill out the survey over multiple sessions, please use 

the link provided to you in the email from [SENDER] to return to the survey. You will automatically go to 

the last page of the survey where you left off.

Please read and follow the directions for responding to the survey items. You can use the scroll bar on 

the right-hand side of the page to navigate among survey items. Click on the “Next” button at the 

bottom of the page to proceed through the survey. Note that you can review and/or edit your responses 

to previous items by clicking on the button marked “Back” at the bottom of each page. Do not use the 

browser’s back button or you will be exited from the survey. When you have completed the survey, click 

“Submit.” Once you have submitted your survey, you will not be able to change your responses.

Thank you for taking this survey.

Background 

1. How long have you been your state’s Coordinator for the Education for the Homeless Children and 

Youth (EHCY) Program? 

_______________years (If less than one year, write “Less than one year.”)

(NOTE: All remaining questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise 

specified.) 

2. How many hours per week do you officially work at your sponsoring agency? 

___________hours 

3. How many hours per week do you officially work as the State Coordinator of the EHCY Program? 

_____________hours 
4. How many paid staff members, including yourself, work for the Office of the Coordinator of 

Education of Homeless Children and Youth? Please indicate the number of staff members in fulltime equivalent (FTE) positions. Include full- and part-time staff, contracted workers, administrators, 

support staff, etc. (For example, a full-time employee working full-time for the Office of the 

Coordinator and a full-time employee working half-time for the Office of the Coordinator would be 

counted as a total of 1.5 FTE, etc.)

Number of full-time equivalent staff_____________

5. Among the responsibilities assigned to the State Coordinator, on which do you spend the most time? 

Drag up to three of the responsibilities in the left column to the right column so that the first one is the 

one you spend the most time on, the second one is the one you spend the second most time on, and 

the third one is the one you spend the third most time on.

Responsibilities

Rank up to THREE 

responsibilities on which you 

spend the most time

Gathering information on the problems faced by homeless children and 

youth (needs assessment)

Gathering information on the progress of the state educational agency (SEA) 

and districts in addressing problems faced by homeless children and youth

Gathering information on the success of McKinney-Vento programs in 

allowing homeless children and youth to enroll in, attend, and succeed in 

school (program evaluation)

Providing to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), upon request, 

information that ED determines is necessary to assess the educational needs 

of homeless children and youth

Coordinating with other organizations and agencies (e.g., state social service 

agencies, legal advocates, and community-based organizations, etc.) to 

provide and improve services to homeless children and youth

Raising awareness and understanding among districts of the McKinneyVento legislative requirements and the role of the district liaison 

Providing technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, 

providing information, etc.) to districts to ensure that districts comply with 

the McKinney-Vento Act

Monitoring districts with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants 

Resolving disputes (e.g., enrollment, provision of services, transportation 

disputes, etc.) 

Ensuring the review and revisions of any state or local laws, regulations, 

practices, or policies that may act as barriers to the enrollment, attendance, 

or success in school of homeless children and youth 

Other (Please specify.)
6. Regardless of how much time you spend on each of the following responsibilities, which three are 

the most important to achieving the goal of McKinney-Vento (i.e., to reduce the barriers that 

homeless children and youth face enrolling, attending, and succeeding in school)? Rank up to three

of the following responsibilities so that "1" is the most important responsibility, "2" is the second 

most important responsibility, and "3" is the third most important responsibility.

Responsibilities

Rank up to THREE of 

the most important 

responsibilities

Gathering information on the problems faced by homeless children and youth 

(needs assessment) 

Gathering information on the progress of the state educational agency (SEA) and 

districts in addressing those problems

Gathering information on the success of McKinney-Vento programs in allowing 

homeless children and youth to enroll in, attend, and succeed in school (program 

evaluation)

Providing to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), upon request, information that 

ED determines is necessary to assess the educational needs of homeless children 

and youth

Coordinating with other organizations and agencies (e.g., state social service 

agencies, legal advocates, and community-based organizations, etc.) to provide and 

improve services to homeless children and youth

Raising awareness and understanding among districts of the McKinney-Vento 

legislative requirements and the role of the district liaison 

Providing technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, providing 

information, etc.) to districts to ensure that districts comply with the McKinneyVento Act

Monitoring districts with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants 

Resolving disputes (e.g., enrollment, provision of services, transportation disputes, 

etc.) 

Ensuring the review and revisions of any state or local laws, regulations, practices, or 

policies that may act as barriers to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school 

of homeless children and youth 

Other (Please specify.)
Collecting and Using Data 

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

7. States are required to provide a variety of information for the Consolidated State Performance 

Report (CSPR) regarding homeless children and youth in subgrantee districts. What among the 

following CSPR data on homeless children and youth, if any, does your state collect from nonsubgrantee districts? (Select all that apply.)

CSPR data on homeless children and youth Collected from nonsubgrantee districts

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are unaccompanied

Number of homeless children and youth who are migratory

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities (IDEA)

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited English proficient

Educational support services provided to homeless children and youth

Barriers that homeless children and youth face in a district 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state language arts 

assessment

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who scored at or above 

proficient on the state language arts assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state math assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who scored at or above 

proficient on the state math assessment 

8. Among the data your state collects, which data, if any, do you consider to be burdensome to collect 

from subgrantee and/or non-subgrantee districts and which data do you consider to be not useful to 

your state for purposes of serving the educational needs of homeless children and youth?

CSPR data on homeless children and youth

Burdensome 

to collect from 

subgrantees

Burdensome to 

collect from 

non-subgrantees

Not 

useful

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are 

unaccompanied

Number of homeless children and youth who are migratory

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities (IDEA)

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited English 

proficient

Educational support services provided to homeless children and

youth

Barriers that homeless children and youth face in a district 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state 

language arts assessment

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state language arts 

assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state 

math assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state math assessment 
9. In addition to the information that is required for the CSPR, which of the following data on homeless 

children and youth, if any, does your state collect from McKinney-Vento subgrantee and/or nonsubgrantee districts? (Select all that apply.)

Data on homeless children and youth

Collected 

from McKinneyVento subgrantee

districts

Collected from nonsubgrantee districts

Attendance rates 

Graduation and/or dropout rates 

Mobility rates 

Number of homeless preschool-aged children 

under the jurisdiction of the district 

Other (Please specify.)

10. Are the data your state collects on homeless children and youth linked with individual student 

outcome data, such as scores on state assessments and school attendance, through the use of a 

unique student identifier (i.e., ID number for each student in the district or state data system)? 

• Yes

• No 

• Don’t know

11. For which of the following purposes, if any, does your state use the data collected from districts on 

homeless children and youth? (Select all that apply.) 

• Designing technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, providing information, etc.) 

to help districts with meeting the requirements of McKinney-Vento

• Assisting districts with conducting their own needs assessment

• Monitoring district compliance with McKinney-Vento requirements

• Monitoring individual school compliance with McKinney-Vento requirements

• Applying for a grant (either federal or other)

• Communicating with elected officials

• Communicating with parents of homeless children and youth

• Communicating with community members (other than parents of homeless children and youth 

and elected officials)

• Other (Please specify.)
12. Which of the following data sources, if any, does your state use to identify and address the needs of 

homeless children and youth? (Select one response for each row)

Data sources Yes No

U.S. Census Bureau

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Title I program

Other offices within the SEA (e.g., special education, assessment, etc.)

Other state government agencies

Head Start program

Local Public Housing (HMIS), Health, or Human Service Agency

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) program

Homeless shelters, homeless advocacy organizations, etc.

Other

N/A: No independent data source used for this purpose

13. For which of the following purposes, if any, does your office use the Department of Education’s 

Student Achievement and School Accountability (SASA) monitoring reports? (Select all that apply)

• To improve compliance with the statutory and other regulatory requirements that govern the 

reservation of funds for state-level coordination activities

• To comply with statutory and other regulatory requirements governing the use of state 

administrative funding under McKinney-Vento

• To improve efforts to coordinate and collaborate with other organizations and agencies (e.g., 

state social service agencies, legal advocates, local liaisons, and community-based organizations, 

etc.) to ensure the identification, enrollment, and retention of homeless children and youth

• To improve technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, providing information, 

etc.) provided to districts to ensure that districts comply with the McKinney-Vento Act

• To improve monitoring and evaluation of districts with and without McKinney-Vento subgrants 

to ensure compliance with McKinney-Vento program requirements

• To improve efforts to ensure that district subgrantees’ plans for services to eligible homeless 

students meet all requirements

• To improve the state system to ensure the prompt resolution of disputes (e.g., enrollment, 

provision of services, transportation disputes, etc.)

• To improve efforts to ensure that districts provide comparable Title I, Part A services to 

homeless students attending non-Title I schools
Barriers Homeless Children and Youth Face

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

We are interested in your insights into the significant barriers that homeless children and youth face in 

your state. A significant barrier is one that takes substantial time to resolve and/or frequently comes up as 

a barrier in multiple districts.

14. Consider the current significant barriers to school success for homeless children and youth. Rank up 

to three of the following so that "1" is the most significant barrier, "2" is the second most significant 

barrier, and "3" is the third most significant barrier.

Possible barriers to school success Rank up to THREE of the 

most significant barriers

Poor health/inadequate medical care resulting in poor school 

attendance

Frequent mobility from school to school

Lack of continuity in the classroom; frequent regrouping and 

rearranging of students within classrooms

Lack of awareness and sensitivity among school administrators and 

teachers to the specific educational needs of homeless children and 

youth

Inappropriate assessment, screening, and placement in school/lack of 

access to educational services for which homeless children and youth 

may be eligible (e.g., Title I, special education, gifted and talented 

programs)

Behavior problems

Lack of adequate school supplies

Inability to complete school assignments due to the lack of an 

appropriate (e.g., quiet) study area

Other (Please specify.)

Don’t know
Efforts to Raise Awareness 

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

15. What methods, if any, did your state use to assess the level of awareness of the needs of homeless 

children and youth and/or the statutory requirements of McKinney-Vento and Title I legislation 

relative to the education of homeless children and youth among staff of the following programs, 

agencies, or organizations? (Select all that apply for each row.) 

Methods for assessing current awareness

Assessed awareness among: None Survey

Interviews or 

focus groups

Informal 

conversations

Barrier tracking, 

or TA inquiries

Title I program 

Other offices within the SEA (e.g., special 

education, assessment, etc.)

Other state government agencies

School districts

State school board 

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 

(RHYA) program 

HUD-funded programs 

Head Start program 

Other (Please specify.)

16. How often, if at all, has your state conducted awareness-raising activities (e.g., workshops, 

presentations, meetings, etc.) regarding the needs of homeless children and youth and/or the 

statutory requirements of McKinney-Vento and Title I legislation relative to the education of 

homeless children and youth among staff of the following programs, agencies, or organizations?

(Select one for each row.)

Conducted awareness-raising activities for 

staff of: Never

Every few 

years

Once a 

year

Several 

times a 

year

About once a 

month or 

more

Title I

Other offices within the SEA (e.g., special 

education, assessment, etc.)

Other state government agencies

School districts

State school board 

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) 

program 

HUD-funded programs

Head Start program 

Other (Please specify.)
17. How often, if at all, has your state disseminated materials (e.g., legislation and policy guidelines, 

informational briefs, posters, data or research, etc.) regarding the needs of homeless children and 

youth and/or the statutory requirements of McKinney-Vento and Title I legislation relative to the 

education of homeless children and youth to staff of the following programs, agencies, or 

organizations? (Select one for each row.)

Disseminated materials to staff of: Never

Every few 

years

Once a 

year

Several 

times a 

year

About once a 

month or 

more

Title I

Other offices within the SEA (e.g., special 

education, assessment, etc.)

Other state government agencies

School districts

State school board 

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) 

program 

HUD-funded programs

Head Start program 

Other (Please specify.)

Coordination and Collaboration of Efforts

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

18. Consider your efforts to coordinate and collaborate with other programs, agencies, or organizations on 

issues related to serving the educational needs of homeless children and youth. Among the following, 

rank up to three efforts to coordinate and collaborate that most improved program administration 

and/or services to homeless children and youth in your state so that "1" is the most effective 

collaborative activity, "2" is the second most effective collaborative activity, and "3" is the third 

most effective collaborative activity.

Efforts to coordinate or collaborate with other programs, agencies, or organizations on

Rank up to THREE 

activities that most 

improved program 

administration 

and/or services

Participating in an interagency task force or committee on homelessness

Sharing data on the homeless population 

Conducting monitoring visits to local districts to assess the extent to which the needs of 

homeless children and youth are being addressed

Reviewing state policies or regulations that affect homeless populations

Sharing the costs of transporting homeless children and youth to and from school

Determining shelter placements for homeless families with school-age children

Identifying gaps in services to homeless children and youth

Identifying barriers that impede access to school for homeless children and youth

Building programmatic linkages among various programs, agencies, or organizations 

working in the service of homeless children and youth

Other (Please specify.)
19. Consider your efforts to facilitate coordination and collaboration with Title I services. Which, if any, of 

the following steps has your state taken to facilitate coordination with Title I? (Select all that apply) 

• Developed systems to facilitate cross-program collaborations on state and local plans for both 

the EHCY and Title I programs

• Articulated clearly how the local liaison can access Title I, Part A, set-aside funds

• Provided Title I and the EHCY program personnel with cross-program trainings and materials

• Collected and shared data across the EHCY and Title I programs on the needs of homeless and 

other low-income students along with information on effective programs to address these 

needs

• Involved the EHCY program personnel in the creation of school-wide Title I programs, targeted 

assistance programs, and plans for school improvement

• Located the EHCY program and Title I offices in close proximity to facilitate cross-program 

communication

• Ensured that district liaisons are represented on the state Title I Committee of Practitioners

• Included homeless parents in Title I parent involvement policies and created opportunities for 

homeless parents to be involved 

• Established processes for determining and approving district homeless reservations for Title I, 

Part A programs

• Other (Please specify.)

McKinney-Vento Subgrants

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

20. Approximately what percentage of McKinney-Vento funds were reserved for state use? (Select one)

• None

• Under 5 percent

• 5 to 9 percent

• 10 to 14 percent

• 15 to 19 percent

• 20 to 25 percent

• Over 25 percent

• Don’t know
21. Does your state provide McKinney-Vento subgrant funds through an intermediate educational 

agency or consortia arrangement? (Select one)

• Yes

• No 

• Don’t know 

22. What were the leading selection factors associated with successful applications for McKinney-Vento 

Act subgrants in the latest grant cycle? Among the following, rank up to three factors that were given 

the most weight in selecting applications for funding so that "1" is the factor given the most weight, 

"2" is the factor given the second most weight, and "3" is the factor given the third most weight.

Selection factors Rank up to THREE 

leading factors

Districts’ capacity to provide the services offered

Districts’ prior experience in serving homeless children and youth

Quality of the proposed project

Number of homeless children and youth in the district

Concentration or proportion of homeless children and youth in the district

Severity of the unmet needs of homeless children and youth in the district

All applications were funded

Other (Please specify.)

ARRA Funding

23. On what basis did your state allocate McKinney-Vento ARRA funds to districts? (Select one)

• On a competitive basis only

• On a formula basis only

• On a combination of a competitive and formula basis (e.g., awarded a portion of the funds 

competitively and the rest by formula)

• Don’t know 

24. In 2009–10 or 2010–11 did your state allocate any McKinney-Vento ARRA funds to districts that 

were not already McKinney-Vento subgrantees?

• Yes

• No (Skip question 25)

• Don’t know (Skip question 25)
25. In the 2009–10 and/or the 2010–11 school years to how many districts that were not already 

McKinney-Vento subgrantees did your state allocate McKinney-Vento ARRA funds?

• Number of districts not already McKinney-Vento subgrantees that received McKinney-Vento 

ARRA funds in just 2009–10: __________

• Number of districts not already McKinney-Vento subgrantees that received McKinney-Vento 

ARRA funds in just 2010–11: __________

• Number of districts not already McKinney-Vento subgrantees that received McKinney-Vento 

ARRA funds in both 2009–10 and 2010–11: ___________ 

Technical Assistance and Monitoring

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

26. In your state do intermediate educational agencies or consortia provide support or services to 

districts for the EHCY Program? (Select one)

• Yes

• No (Skip Question 27)

• Don’t know (Skip Question 27)

27. Which of the following resources/services do intermediate educational agencies or consortia in your 

state provide to districts related to the EHCY Program? (Select all that apply)

• Training for district homeless liaisons

• Training for district staff (e.g., strategies for removing barriers to enrollment and school success 

for homeless children and youth, strategies for raising awareness regarding the needs of

homeless children and youth, etc.)

• One–on-one assistance (in person or by phone or e-mail)

• Materials related to the EHCY Program (e.g., legislation and policy guidelines, information briefs, 

posters, data, research, etc.)

• Direct services to homeless children and youth or their families (e.g., providing information to

parents regarding the rights of and resources available for homeless children and youth,

referrals for health services, tutoring, etc).

• Case management for homeless students and families

• Fiscal agent/fiscal management of subgrant 

• Other (Please specify.) 

• None 

• Don’t know
28. A.) Did the state provide technical assistance (e.g., one-on-one assistance, training, information) to 

any McKinney-Vento subgrantee and/or non-grantee districts on any of the following topics?

(Select all that apply for McKinney-Vento subgrant districts and all that apply for non-subgrantee 

districts.)

B.) On which of the following technical assistance topics could the state use more guidance or 

resources from the U.S. Department of Education? (Select all that apply)

Topics for assistance from the state

A.) Provided 

assistance to

McKinney-Vento 

subgrantee districts 

on the following 

topics:

(Select all that 

apply)

A.) Provided 

assistance to

non-grantee

districts on the 

following topics:

(Select all that 

apply)

B.) Your state 

needs more 

guidance or 

resources on 

this topic

(Select all that 

apply)

Understanding the requirements of the McKinney-Vento law 

Understanding the legal responsibilities of the liaison for 

homelessness issues

Informing district personnel about the McKinney-Vento law and 

its requirements

Informing school personnel about the McKinney-Vento law and 

its requirements

Informing parents and students about the McKinney-Vento law 

and their rights under the law

Identifying homeless students

Collecting, using, and reporting data about homeless students

Addressing barriers related to school enrollment and school 

placement (e.g., residency requirements, immunization 

requirements, etc.)

Addressing barriers related to school attendance (e.g., poor 

health, lack of adequate clothing and school supplies, etc.)

Addressing barriers related to school success (e.g., frequent 

mobility, lack of appropriate study area to complete homework, 

etc.)

Addressing barriers related to transportation within the district

Addressing barriers related to transportation across district 

boundaries

Coordinating with Title I programs (e.g., cross-program 

collaborations on state and local plans for both McKinney-Vento 

and Title I, cross-program trainings and materials, etc.)

Developing additional learning opportunities delivered as part of 

the school day

Coordinating with external education service providers (e.g., 

after-school providers, supplemental tutoring services, etc.)

Accessing social services to support homeless students

Enhancing parental involvement 

Other (Please specify.)
29. In your opinion, which of the following, if any, create barriers to your state’s efforts to administer 

the EHCY program? (Select all that apply.)

Type of barrier

Creates barriers to 

state efforts to 

administer the 

EHCY program

Lack of federal support regarding understanding the requirements of the McKinney-Vento law

Data requirements from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) regarding the educational needs of 

homeless children and youth

Legislative requirement to coordinate and collaborate with other organizations and agencies 

(e.g., state social service agencies, legal advocates, and community-based organizations, etc.) 

to provide and improve services to homeless children and youth

Lack of federal guidance regarding ways to address barriers to school success for homeless children 

and youth

Lack of federal guidance regarding ways to identify homeless children and youth

Lack of federal guidance regarding awareness raising efforts (i.e., informing districts, schools, parents 

about the McKinney-Vento law and its requirements)

Other (Please specify.)

30. In general, how does the Office of the Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and 

Youth monitor efforts by subgrantee and non-subgrantee school districts to reduce the barriers to the 

education of homeless children and youth? (Select all that apply.) 

Possible monitoring techniques

McKinney-Vento 

subgrantee districts

(Select all that apply)

Non-subgrantee 

districts

(Select all that apply)

Efforts are not monitored (If selected skip Question 31.)

Assurances of compliance with regulations are required 

Progress reports are requested

Progress reports are required

Efforts are monitored through phone calls or written 

correspondence (i.e., desk monitoring)

Efforts are monitored through visits to local school districts 

(Please specify total number of visits per year.) (If selected, 

answer Question 31, if not skip 31.)

Efforts are monitored by integrated monitoring visits to school 

districts that address this and other federal or state programs 

(Please specify which programs.) (If selected, answer Question 

31, if not skip 31)

Other (Please specify.)
31. On what basis is it decided which school districts to visit? (Select all that apply.) 

Basis for decision to visit

McKinney-Vento 

subgrantee districts

(Select all that apply)

Non-subgrantee 

districts

(Select all that apply)

There is a routine cycle (If selected answer question 32,

if not skip 32.)

Visits are triggered by information suggesting that the 

district is having trouble meeting program 

requirements

Visits are triggered by information about student 

performance

Visits are triggered at the request of the district

Other (Please specify.)

32. How often is the typical monitoring cycle for the McKinney-Vento Subgrantee and non-subgrantee 

districts? (Select one for subgrantee districts and one for non-subgrantee districts.)

Monitoring cycle

McKinney-Vento 

subgrantee districts

(Select all that apply)

Non-subgrantee 

districts

(Select all that apply)

More than once a year

Once a year

Every two years

Less than every two years

33. In the most recent monitoring year, how many districts in your state were identified as having not

complied with one or more federal or state laws or regulations regarding the education of homeless 

children and youth?

_________________Number of districts (If zero, skip 34.)

34. Consider the types of findings you have identified through compliance monitoring. Under which of the 

following categories do they fall? (Select all that apply.)

• Designating a EHCY liaison and their roles and responsibilities

• Identifying homeless children and youth in the district

• Identifying and raising awareness of the needs and legal rights of homeless children and youth 

• Carrying out activities to address the needs of homeless children and youth

• Addressing the barriers to homeless children and youth enrolling, attending, and succeeding in 

school

• Collaborating and/or partnering with other programs, agencies, and organizations on issues 

related to serving the educational needs of homeless children and youth

• Resolving disputes about the eligibility and placement of homeless children and youth

• Using EHCY sub-grant funds

• Other___________
35. Have you ever notified a district in your state that it is not in compliance with one or more federal or 

state laws or regulations regarding the education of homeless children and youth? 

Yes

No (Skip question 36.)

36. How do you follow up with districts that you have notified of not being in compliance with one or 

more federal or state laws or regulations regarding the education of homeless children and youth?

(Select all that apply.)

• No follow-up

• Letter with mandate to address, requirement of documentation when resolved

• Letter with no mandate

• Withholding of funds

• Remonitoring

• Other (Please specify.)

37. Is there anything you would like to add that you think we should know or would help explain your 

responses to any of the survey questions?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey and for helping to improve 

the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program!
District Liaison Survey

This survey is part of an evaluation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program, 

as authorized under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subtitle B, as amended 

(McKinney-Vento Act). Surveys were sent to a randomly selected sample of districts across the United 

States. Its purpose is to get information on implementation of the program in your district. (In this 

survey the term “district” refers to your Local Education Agency.) The survey will ask about the 

collection and use of data on homeless children and youth, the barriers facing homeless children and 

youth, and efforts to address those barriers. The findings will provide useful information on the program 

to the United States Department of Education, congress, and practitioners. As a recipient of a 

McKinney-Vento subgrant (or as a member of an intermediate educational agency or consortium 

receiving the grant), your participation in the survey is required under ESEA, Sec. 9804(a)(4).

Responses to this survey will be used for statistical purposes only. The reports prepared for this study 

will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific state, 

district, or individual. The evaluator will not provide information that identifies a state, district, or 

individual to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Every effort will be made to 

maintain confidentiality of the information collected to the full extent permitted by law.

We estimate that this survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. You may fill out the 

survey all at once, or in multiple sittings. If you fill out the survey in multiple sittings, use the link 

provided to you in the email from [SENDER] to return to the survey. You will automatically go to the last 

page of the survey where you left off.

Please read and follow the directions for responding to each survey item. You can use the scroll bar on 

the right-hand side of the page to navigate among survey items. Click on the buttons at the bottom of 

the page to proceed through the survey. Note that you can review and/or edit your responses to 

previous items by clicking on the “Previous Page” button at the bottom of each page. When you have 

completed the survey, click on “Submit Survey.” Once you have submitted your survey, you will not be 

able to change your responses.

Thank you for taking this survey.

Background 

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

1. Do you work for the district as a (select one)

• Full-time employee? (Number of hours______)

• Part-time employee? (Number of hours_______)

• Contractual employee? (Number of hours_____)
2. On average, how many hours do you spend per week on your district liaison responsibilities for the 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program [the “district liaison” is the person 

responsible for ensuring EHCY requirements are carried out in your district]?

_______hours

3. How long have you been the district liaison for the EHCY program? 

_________Number of years (If less than one year, write “Less than one year.”)

4. Below is a list of possible district liaison responsibilities. On which responsibilities do you spend the 

most time? Rank up to three of the responsibilities so that "1" is the one you spend the most time 

on, "2" is the one you spend the second most time on, and "3" is the one you spend the third most 

time on.

Responsibilities Rank up to THREE responsibilities on

which you spend the most time

Identifying, or helping others identify, homeless children and youth

Enrolling, or helping others enroll, homeless children and youth in school 

and mediating enrollment disputes

Obtaining, or helping others obtain, immunization or medical records

Ensuring that homeless children and youth and their families receive the 

educational services for which they are eligible

Ensuring homeless children and youth and their families receive health 

referrals

Informing parents or guardians of homeless children and youth of the 

educational and related opportunities available to them

Coordinating transportation services 

Informing parents or guardians of homeless children and youth of all the 

transportation services available

Disseminating public notice of the educational rights of homeless children 

and youth

Collaborating and coordinating with the state coordinator for the EHCY 

program 

Collaborating and coordinating with local government agencies and 

community-based organizations to provide support services to homeless 

families

Working with families to access support services through local government 

agencies and community-based organizations 

Collecting, or helping others collect, data on homeless children and youth

Other (Please specify.)

5. Do any district staff besides you help administer the EHCY program? (Select one.)

• Yes (Number ______)

• No 

• Don’t know 
6. Where does funding for your work as district liaison come from? (Select all that apply.)

• McKinney-Vento funds

• District (i.e., from the general operating budget of your school district, or from a consortium of 

districts)

• State Education Agency (SEA)

• Title I under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as reauthorized under the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2002)

• U.S. Department of Education program funds other than McKinney-Vento and Title I funds

• U.S. Housing and Urban Development program funds

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services program funds

• Other federal program funds (Please specify)

• Grants from non-profit foundations and community-based organizations 

• In-kind services from community-based organizations

• Other (Please specify.)

• Don’t know

7. In the 2010–11 school year did you receive McKinney-Vento subgrant funding?

• Yes

• No

• Don’t Know

8. Does your district currently receive a McKinney-Vento subgrant and/or support services for the 

EHCY program through an intermediate educational agency or consortium arrangement? (Select all 

that apply.)

• Yes, we receive a McKinney subgrant through an intermediate unit or consortium

• Yes, we receive support services for the EHCY program through an intermediate unit or 

consortium

• No, we do not receive either

• Don’t know 
Collecting and Using Data

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

We are interested in whether your district collects certain data on homeless children and youth.

9. In the 2010–11 school year what was the number of homeless children and youth in your district?

Number_______________

10. Districts that have received McKinney-Vento subgrants are required to provide states with a variety 

of information regarding homeless children and youth. What among the following data on homeless 

children and youth, if any, do you consider to be burdensome for your district to collect and report 

to the state? Which data, in your opinion, are not useful to the district? (Select all that apply.)

Data on homeless children and youth

Data that are 

burdensome 

to collect

Data that 

are not 

useful

Number of homeless youth enrolled in public schools who are 

unaccompanied

Number of homeless children and youth who are migratory

Number of homeless children and youth with disabilities (IDEA)

Number of homeless children and youth who are limited English 

proficient

Educational support services provided to homeless children and 

youth

Barriers that homeless children and youth face in a district 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state 

language arts assessment

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state language arts assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth who took the state math 

assessment 

Number of homeless children and youth, by grade level, who 

scored at or above proficient on the state math assessment 
11. In addition to the information that is required for the CSPR, which of the following data on homeless 

children and youth, if any, does your district collect? (Select all that apply.)

Data on homeless children and youth disaggregated by: Data elements you collect 

(Select all that apply)

Attendance rates 

Graduation rates 

Dropout rates

Mobility rates 

Number of homeless preschool-aged children under the jurisdiction 

of the district 

Other (Please specify.)

12. Are the data your office collects on homeless children and youth linked with individual student 

outcome data, such as scores on state assessments and school attendance, through the use of a 

unique student identifier (i.e., ID number for each student in the district or state data system)? 

• Yes

• No 

• Don’t know

13. For which of the following purposes does your office use the data it collects on homeless children 

and youth? (Select all that apply.) 

• Making decisions about specific educational services delivered to this population

• Reporting to the State Education Agency (SEA)

• Helping the district conduct self-assessments aimed at program improvement

• Designing technical assistance to help schools meet the requirements of McKinney-Vento

• Monitoring school compliance with McKinney-Vento

• Helping schools conduct self-assessments aimed at program improvement

• Applying for a McKinney-Vento subgrant

• Communicating with parents

• Communicating with elected officials

• Communicating with community members (other than parents and elected officials)

• Assessing or raising community awareness

• Raising funds

• Other (Please specify.)
14. Does your district use any of the following data sources to identify the needs of homeless children 

and youth?

Data sources Yes No

Other offices within the school district

Local Public Housing (HMIS), Health, or Human Service Agencies

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) program

Head Start Programs

Homeless shelters, homeless advocacy organizations

Other (Please specify.)

N/A: No independent data source used for this purpose

Barriers to School Enrollment and Success for Homeless Children and Youth 

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.)

We are interested in your insights into the significant barriers homeless children and youth face in their 

efforts to enroll in, attend, and succeed in school in your district. A significant barrier is one that takes 

substantial time to resolve and/or frequently comes up as a barrier in multiple schools.

15. Consider the current significant barriers to school enrollment for homeless children and youth in 

your district. Rank up to three of the following so that "1" is the most significant barrier, "2" is the 

second most significant barrier, and "3" is the third most significant barrier.

Possible barriers to school enrollment Rank up to THREE of the most significant barriers

Residency requirements for school enrollment

Immunization requirements for school enrollment

Delays in obtaining immunization records

Delays in obtaining school records

Transportation to and from school

Guardianship requirements for school enrollment

Family preoccupied with survival needs

Family/student resistance (Please explain.)

Other (Please specify.)
16. Consider the current significant barriers to school attendance for homeless children and youth in 

your district. Rank up to three of the following so that "1" is the most significant barrier, "2" is the 

second most significant barrier, and "3" is the third most significant barrier.

Possible barriers to school attendance Rank up to THREE of the 

most significant barriers

Family or student preoccupied with survival needs

Lack of transportation to and from school

Lack of adequate clothing and school supplies

Inability to complete school assignments due to the lack of an 

appropriate (e.g., quiet) study area

Poor health/inadequate medical care

Ostracized/stigmatized at school for being homeless

Other (Please specify.)

17. Consider the current significant barriers to school success for homeless children and youth in your 

district. Rank up to three of the following so that "1" is the most significant barrier, "2" is the second 

most significant barrier, and "3" is the third most significant barrier.

Possible barriers to school success Rank up to THREE of the 

most significant barriers

Poor health/inadequate medical care resulting in poor school 

attendance

Frequent mobility from school to school

Lack of awareness and sensitivity among school administrators and 

teachers to the specific educational needs of homeless children 

and youth

Inappropriate assessment, screening, and placement in school

Lack of access to educational services for which homeless children 

and youth may be eligible (e.g., Title I, special education, gifted and 

talented programs)

Behavior problems

Lack of adequate school supplies

Inability to complete school assignments due to the lack of an 

appropriate (e.g., quiet) study area

Inability to receive or accumulate credit

Other (Please specify.)
Services Provided to Address the Needs of Homeless Children and Youth

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

18. A.) Which of the following services does your district provide to support the education of homeless 

children and youth? (Select all that apply.) 

B.) Among the following, on which does your district spend the most McKinney-Vento funds. Rank 

up to three of the following services so that "1" is the service on which the most funds are spent, "2" 

is the service on which the second most funds are spent, and "3" is the service on which the third 

most funds are spent.

Services provided:

A) Services district 

provides

(Select all that 

apply.)

B) Rank up to THREE 

services on which your 

district spends the most 

McKinney-Vento funds

Tutoring or supplemental instruction 

Expedited evaluations of the strengths and needs of 

homeless children and youth

District staff training and awareness building about the 

needs of homeless children and youth

School staff training and awareness building about the 

needs of homeless children and youth

Referrals for medical, dental, and other health services

Defraying the cost of transportation for homeless children 

and youth that is not fully funded by federal, state, or local 

funds

Early childhood programs for homeless preschool-aged 

children 

Services and assistance to attract, engage, and retain 

homeless children and youth in regular school programs

Obtaining or transferring records necessary for student 

enrollment in school

Parent education related to rights and resources for 

homeless children and youth

Coordination between schools and agencies that provide 

services to homeless children and youth

Counseling for homeless children and youth

Addressing needs of homeless children and youth related 

to domestic violence

School supplies

Provision for homeless children and youth before and afterschool mentoring and summer programs

Emergency assistance related to school attendance

Other (Please specify.)
Efforts to Raise Awareness 

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

19. How often, if at all, have you or your district conducted awareness-raising activities (trainings, 

presentations, meetings) regarding the needs of homeless children and youth and/or the statutory 

requirements of McKinney-Vento and Title I legislation relative to the education of homeless 

children and youth for the staff of the following programs or organizations? (Select one for each 

row.)

Conducted awareness-raising 

activities for staff of: Never

Every few 

years

Once a 

year

Several times 

a year

About once a 

month or more

Title I

Other offices within your 

district (e.g., special education, 

assessment, etc.)

Schools

District school board

Other local government 

agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth 

Act (RHYA) program

Homeless shelters

HUD-funded programs

Head Start

Other (Please specify.)

20. How often, if at all, have you or your district disseminated materials (legislation and policy 

guidelines, information briefs, posters, data, research) regarding the needs of homeless children and 

youth and/or the statutory requirements of McKinney-Vento and Title I legislation relative to the 

education of homeless children and youth to the staff of the following programs or organizations?

(Select one for each row.)

Disseminated materials to the 

staff of: Never

Every few 

years

Once a 

year

Several times 

a year

About once a

month or more

Title I

Other offices within your district 

(e.g., special education, 

assessment, etc.)

Schools

District school board

Other local government agencies

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 

(RHYA) program

Homeless shelters

HUD-funded programs

Head Start 

Other (Please specify.)
21. Have you used any materials provided by the state for raising awareness about the needs of 

homeless children and youth and/or the statutory requirements of McKinney-Vento? (Select one.)

• Yes

• No 

• No, the state has not provided us with any awareness raising materials.

• Don’t know

22. Have you used any materials developed by the National Center for Homeless Education for raising 

awareness?

• Yes

• No 

• Don’t know

Coordination and Collaboration of Efforts

(NOTE: All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.) 

23. Consider the programs, agencies, and organizations with which you spend the most time collaborating

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

Among the following, please select up to three programs, agencies, and organizations with which you 

spent the most time collaborating and coordinating. (Select up to three responses only.)

• Title I

• Offices within your school district other than Title I (e.g., transportation, special education, 

accountability and assessment, etc.)

• Schools

• Local Housing Authority

• Child and Family Services (or other local agency that serves the needs of children and families)

• Local Health Department

• Other local government agencies

• State Education Agency (SEA) 

• Other state government agencies

• Social service organizations

• Homeless advocacy organizations

• Local businesses

• Local school board 

• Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) programs 

• Homeless shelters

• HUD-funded programs

• Head Start programs

• Other (Please specify.)

24. Consider your efforts to coordinate and collaborate with other programs, agencies, or organizations.

Among the following, which are the three approaches to collaboration that most improved services to 

homeless children and youth in your state? Rank up to three of the following approaches so that "1" 

is the most important approach, "2" is the second most important approach, and "3" is the third 

most important approach. 
Approaches to collaboration with other programs, agencies, or 

organizations:

Rank up to THREE 

approaches that most 

improved services

Participating in an interagency task force or committee on homelessness

Sharing data on the homeless population 

Reviewing district policies or regulations that affect homeless populations 

Sharing the costs of transporting homeless children and youth to and from 

school 

Determining shelter placements for homeless families with school-age 

children 

Identifying gaps in services to homeless children and youth 

Identifying barriers that impede access to school for homeless children and 

youth 

Building programmatic linkages among various programs, agencies, or 

organizations working in the service of homeless children and youth

Conducting joint trainings

Other (Please specify.)

25. Consider your efforts to facilitate coordination and collaboration with Title I services. Which, if any, 

of the following steps have you taken to facilitate coordination with Title I? (Select all that apply.) 

• Developed systems to facilitate cross-program collaborations on local plans for both EHCY and 

Title I staff

• Provided Title I and EHCY staff with cross-program trainings and materials

• Collected and shared data with Title I and EHCY staff on the needs of homeless and other lowincome students 

• Provided Title I and EHCY staff with information on effective programs to address the needs of 

homeless children and youth

• Involved homeless education personnel in the creation of schoolwide Title I programs, targeted 

assistance programs, and plans for school improvement

• Located Title I and homeless education program offices in close proximity to facilitate crossprogram communication

• Participated in the Title I Committee of Practitioners

• Coordinated with Title I staff to determine the amount of and use of Title I homeless set-aside 

funds

• Included homeless parents in Title I parent involvement policies and created opportunities for 

homeless parents to be involved in Title I programs

• Other (Please specify.)

State Technical Assistance to Districts

(All the questions in this survey refer to the 2010–11 school year, unless otherwise specified.)

26. A.) On which topics, if any, did you need state assistance to help you meet the requirements of the 

McKinney-Vento Act? (Select all that apply.)

B.) On which topics, if any, did you receive state assistance (i.e., one-on-one assistance, training, 

information)? (Select all that apply.)

C.) If you received state assistance, how useful was it? (Select only one for each row.)
C) If received, how useful was the state 

assistance? (Select only one for each 

row marked in column B.)

Topics for assistance from the state

A) Did you 

need state 

assistance? 

(Select all 

that apply.)

B) Did you 

receive state 

assistance?

(Select all that 

apply.)

C) If received, how useful w as the state assi stance? (Sele ct only 

one for each row marked i n col umn B. )

Very 

useful

C) If received, how useful w as the state assi stance? (Sele ct only one for ea ch row marked in column B.)

Moderately 

useful

C) If received, how useful w as the state assi stance? (Sele ct only one for ea ch row marked in column B.)

Minimally 

useful

C) If received, how useful w as the state assi stance? (Sele ct only one for ea ch 

row marked in column B.)

Not 

useful 

at all

Understanding the requirements of the McKinney-Vento 

law 

Understanding the legal responsibilities of the liaison for 

homelessness issues

Informing district personnel about the McKinney-Vento 

law and its requirements

Informing school personnel about the McKinney-Vento 

law and its requirements

Informing parents and students about the 

McKinney-Vento law and their rights under the law

Identifying homeless students

Collecting, using, and reporting data about homeless 

students

Addressing barriers related to school enrollment and 

school placement (e.g., residency requirements, 

immunization requirements, etc.) 

Addressing barriers related to school attendance 

(e.g., poor health, lack of adequate clothing and 

school supplies, etc.)

Addressing barriers related to school success (e.g., 

frequent mobility, lack of appropriate study area for 

homework, etc.)

Addressing barriers related to transportation within the 

district

Addressing barriers related to transportation across 

district boundaries

Coordinating with Title I programs (e.g., cross-program 

trainings and materials for Title I and EHCY personnel, 

etc.)

Developing additional learning opportunities delivered as 

part of the school day to homeless children and youth

Coordinating with external education service providers 

(e.g., after-school providers, supplemental tutoring 

services)

Accessing social services to support homeless students

Enhancing involvement opportunities for parents of 

homeless children and youth

Other (Please specify.)
27. Can you provide any examples of how state assistance has changed district policies or affected the 

way your district provides services, uses data, collaborates with other programs, or agencies or 

organizations regarding homeless children and youth? If so, please respond in the space provided.

Be as specific as possible.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

28. Is there anything you would like to add that you think we should know or would help explain your 

responses to any of the survey questions?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey and for helping to improve 

the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program!
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote 

student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov