U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief:

State and District Implementation of the Education for 

Homeless Children and Youth Program

February 2015

In 2010–11, approximately one million students—or 2 percent of students attending school—were identified as homeless. Most of 

these homeless children and youth (71 percent) were “doubled-up,” meaning that they resided with another family at night, while 

some stayed at a shelter (17 percent), stayed at a hotel (5 percent), or were unsheltered (7 percent). Approximately seven out of 10 

homeless students attend school in districts that receive funding under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) 

program, which is authorized under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MVHAA). Congress provided $65 million for the 

program in FY 2010, and states suballocated most of those funds to school districts through a competitive process, either by 

awarding subgrants directly to individual districts and/or to regional entities that provide services to individual districts. Additional 

EHCY funds provided under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for use during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 

school years could be suballocated to districts through either competitive grants or formula grants. The EHCY program requires 

every state to have a state coordinator to administer the program and also requires states to ensure that every school district

designate a district liaison to identify homeless children and youth and ensure that they receive services for which they are eligible.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. How do states allocate EHCY program funds?

2. What are the roles and responsibilities of the 

state coordinator and district liaison? 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? 

STUDY DESIGN 

The study surveyed all 52 state coordinators of the EHCY 

program and a sample of 448 district liaisons of EHCY 

districts. The surveys focused on the 2010–11 school year

and were administered during the spring of 2012. Response 

rates were 96 percent for the state survey and 87 percent 

for the district survey. The study also analyzed statesubmitted data on homeless children and youth.

Highlights

• 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 receive 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 nonEHCY districts more than doubled.

• 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.
ALLOCATING EHCY FUNDS 

On average, states subgranted an estimated 85 percent 

of their regular EHCY allocations to districts and regional 

entities through competitive grants, and reserved 15 

percent of the funds for use at the state level. 

Sixteen states used a regional approach to suballocating 

EHCY funds; these states 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.

For ARRA EHCY funds, 20 states reported allocating funds 

to districts on a formula basis only, 19 reported allocating 

funds on a competitive basis only, and six reported using 

both formula and competitive grants.

STATE AND DISTRICT ROLES

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 receive services.

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), 

and helping districts understand EHCY requirements and 

the role of the district liaison (24). 

District liaisons reported spending the most time 

identifying eligible homeless children and youth (66

percent), ensuring that homeless children and youth 

and their families receive services (47 percent), and 

coordinating transportation services (37 percent).

Nearly all district liaisons reported providing school 

supplies to homeless children and youth and their families 

(91 percent), 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.

District liaisons indicated that the coordination and 

collaboration efforts that most improved services were 

those focused on building programmatic linkages among 

organizations (40 percent), identifying barriers that 

impede access to school (36 percent), and reviewing

district policies or regulations that affect homeless 

populations (36 percent).

MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The number of state coordinators who reported using site 

visits and integrated monitoring visits increased from 1998 

to 2012, and the number who said they monitored non-EHCY

districts’ efforts to reduce educational barriers for homeless 

children and youth more than doubled.

Forty-three states 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. Use of desk monitoring (i.e., phone calls and written 

correspondence) declined slightly, from 37 to 34 states; 29 of 

the 34 reporting doing this in addition to site visit monitoring.

Twenty-six state coordinators reported using site visits to 

monitor non-EHCY districts’ efforts to reduce barriers for 

homeless children and youth in 2012, up from nine in 1998. 

State coordinators reported needing more assistance on

enhancing parental involvement (31 states), developing

additional learning opportunities for homeless students within 

the school day (26), transportation across district boundaries 

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

District liaisons most often reported needing state technical 

assistance to help them better understand MVHAA legal 

requirements (56 percent), the legal responsibilities of the 

district liaison (55 percent), and how to collect, use, and 

report data on homeless students (44 percent).

DATA ON HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Most states reported collecting more comprehensive data 

on homeless students than is required under the law.

In addition to collecting required data such as homeless 

students’ achievement on state assessments, many states 

also collected data on graduation or dropout rates (31) and 

attendance rates (24); 36 states reported that their state 

data system uses a unique student identifier to link various 

data on homeless students. States often collected data from 

non-subgrantees as well as subgrantees.

BARRIERS TO SCHOOL SUCCESS

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.

Other reported barriers to school enrollment were delays in 

obtaining school records and residency requirements for 

school enrollment. Other reported barriers to school 

attendance were inability to complete school assignments 

because of the lack of an appropriate study area, lack of 

adequate clothing and supplies, and poor health or 

inadequate medical care.