The McKinney–Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Abstract

During the 2008–2009 academic school year, nearly a million (956,914) students were reported by school districts as being homeless, a 41% increase over just a 2-year period year. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of national legislative efforts to address the education of children who are homeless, with a particular emphasis on students with disabilities. The McKinney–Vento Act is intended to provide some relief to the many challenges children who are homeless face. The act provides federal funding to the states and establishes requirements that expedite and in fact bypass bureaucratic documentation requirements for school enrollment and help create a stable school environment that provides the opportunity for these students to succeed in school.

Keywords

homeless special education McKinney–Vento EHCY

Although the exact number of children living within the United States who are homeless is difficult to calculate, the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY) estimates that nearly 1.5 million children qualify as being homeless each year (NAEHCY, 2010). By definition, children and youth who are homeless are those “individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 2).This includes children and youth who (a) have a primary nighttime residence that is a public place not typically used for sleeping accommodations for humans, (b) live in cars, parks, abandoned buildings, or similar settings, (c) are sharing housing with others, (d) are living in motels, hotels, or emergency shelters, (e) are abandoned in hospitals, (f) are awaiting foster care placement, or (g) are migratory and qualify as homeless due to one of the above circumstances (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

Unfortunately, due to the recent economic recession, the number of youth who are homeless across America has risen dramatically over the past several years. A recent report showed the number of children and youth who are homeless and identified in public schools increased by 41%, from 679,724 students in 2006–2007 to 956,914 students in the 2008–2009 school year (NAEHCY, 2010). Another disconcerting trend has been the increasing number of homeless families with children across the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which uses a somewhat more restricted definition of homelessness, families accounted for less than 1% of the homeless population during the 1980s. Today, however, families represent approximately one third (32%) of our nation’s homeless population (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009), a trend that has significantly affected our nation’s schools.

Although the impact of homelessness may be challenging for anyone, it is particularly devastating for children, affecting every aspect of their lives and development, including their physical health, academic performance, and social/emotional wellbeing. For instance, more than twice as many children who are homeless have moderate to severe health conditions in comparison to their peers (Bassuk et al., 1996). Bassuk and colleagues (1996) went on to describe that these children often have limited access to food and health care; experience higher rates of asthma, ear infections, stomach problems, and speech problems; and are 4 times more likely to experience developmental delays. Homelessness can also have dire consequences on a child’s success in school. A recent review by Murphy (2011) highlighted the numerous ways homelessness adversely affects these children’s education, resulting in (a) increased rates of absenteeism, (b) poor academic performance, (c) lower standardized achievement scores, (d) higher rates of grade retention, (e) underidentification of needed special education services, (f) absence of needed special education services, and (g) increased dropout rates. In addition, these children often experience severe social/emotional issues. Studies have shown that one in six children who are homeless experience serious emotional disturbances, twice the rate of their non-homeless peers (National Center on Family Homelessness, 2009). The family histories of many youth who are homeless are also extremely troubling, consisting of disrupted and abusive home environments (Kidd, 2007), with exposure to high rates of criminality and substance abuse. By the time children who are homeless reach adolescence, nearly all (83%) have been exposed to at least one serious violent event (National Center on Family Homelessness, 2009). In addition, children who are homeless frequently experience high levels of stigma and social oppression from their peers (Kidd, 2007). Unfortunately, these children often lack the coping skills necessary to act as a protective mechanism from this criticism, making them more susceptible to mental health problems (Kidd, 2007). As a result of these many risk factors, children who are homeless experience significantly higher mortality rates (e.g., 12–40 times), with suicide being the leading cause of death (Roy et al., 2004). This article provides an overview of legislative efforts to address the education of children who are homeless, with a particular emphasis on students with disabilities.

History of the McKinney–Vento Act

The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act (1987) was first introduced to Congress in 1986 as the Homeless Person’s Survival Act. The act was a response to the nation’s growing homeless problem and included the Homeless Eligibility Clarification Act of 1986 and the Homeless Housing Act (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006). The Homeless Eligibility Clarification Act removed permanent address requirements for programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Veterans Benefits, whereas the Homeless Housing Act produced the Emergency Shelter Program and a traditional housing program, both of which were administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment. In 1987, Congress passed Title I of the Homeless Person’s Survival Act, the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act, which contained provisions for shelter, food, mobile health care, and transitional housing. The act was later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act in memory of two of its most ardent congressional supporters.

Since its inception, the McKinney–Vento Act has been amended in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994 (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006). These amendments have typically expanded programs like Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Support, Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness, and the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. The latter program granted local education agencies (LEAs) more flexibility in the use of funds, identified the rights of homeless preschoolers to a free and appropriate public education, and required educational authorities to coordinate with housing authorities. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), which included the reauthorization of the McKinney–Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act.

The McKinney–Vento Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program

The McKinney–Vento Education of Homeless Children and Youth (McKinney–Vento EHCY) Program is authorized under Title VII-B of the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act (1987). The program is designed to attend to the enrollment, attendance, and achievement difficulties faced by youth throughout the United States who are homeless (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). McKinney–Vento EHCY is designed to ensure that state education agencies (SEAs) throughout the United States provide children who are homeless equal access to education in settings that are integrated with nonhomeless students, including preschool education. LEAs, in addition to SEAs, are required to revise laws, regulations, or policies that may impede the enrollment, attendance, or academic achievement of children or youth who are homeless. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s McKinney–Vento Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2006, the most common enrollment barriers for children and youth who are homeless are transportation, immunization requirements, residency requirements, provision of birth certificates, and legal guardianship requirements.

The McKinney–Vento EHCY program provides federal financial assistance to states to “identify homeless children, remove barriers to enroll in school, and provide services to increase opportunities for academic success” (Cunningham, Harwood, & Hall, 2010, p. 6). In 2009, Congress awarded a one-time $70 million supplement to the program (in addition to the yearly $65 million appropriation) through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Federal assistance is awarded in the form of formula grants to support the state coordinator for homeless education and to award subgrants to LEAs on the basis of need (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). The amount an SEA from the Department of Education receives is determined by the proportion it receives under Part A of Title I of No Child Left Behind. Each state is required to appoint a state coordinator for education of homeless children and youth who is charged with (a) developing and carrying out the state’s McKinney–Vento EHCY plan, (b) gathering data and assessing the SEA and LEAs’ implementation of the McKinney–Vento EHCY programs, (c) providing technical assistance to LEAs, and (d) collecting and transmitting information to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the state’s implementation of the McKinney–Vento EHCY program (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In addition, LEAs within the state must appoint a local homeless liaison, and individual school personnel must identify students who are homeless and provide them with services.

The local homeless liaison, along with school personnel, is responsible for identifying and providing services in schools for children who are homeless. This individual is charged with locating students who are homeless, using various methods to do so, including having parents complete a residency questionnaire, interviewing parents at enrollment, sending informational letters home with students, coordinating with homeless service providers, posting flyers in areas known to have a high percentage of low income families, contacting managers of motels and campgrounds, and developing relationships with truancy officers (National Center for Homeless Education, 2008). This task, however, can be particularly problematic given that parents who are homeless are (a) often unaware of their children’s educational rights, (b) choose not to identify their problems to avoid possible stigmas attached to homelessness, and (c) avoid contact with child welfare authorities (Cunningham et al., 2010).

School Enrollment

Homeless families typically move frequently, resulting in an unstable home life for these students. Hence, maintaining a stable school environment is critical to their academic and social success (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Unfortunately, given the bureaucratic system for school enrollment, children who are homeless who lack educational and medical records experience significant challenges enrolling in school. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education (2000) found only two thirds (67%) of children who are homeless were actually enrolled in school. To help foster a stable school environment, McKinney–Vento EHCY requires schools to identify students who are homeless and, after having done so, determine the “best interest” of the child, which could entail either continuing to serve the student in the “school of origin” or providing for an “immediate enrollment” in a new school.

In most cases, the children are expected to continue their education in their school of origin to the extent feasible, unless it is against the wishes of the parents or guardians. The school of origin is defined as “the school the child or youth attended when permanently housed, or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled” (McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 1987, Sec. 722(g)(3)(G)). In most cases, schools should continue serving students who are homeless in their school of origin for the duration of their homelessness. In the event the school district chooses to send the student to a school other than the school of origin, or the school of residency, the district must provide written explanation to the parent or guardian, including the right to appeal the decision.

When a new school is selected as being in the “best interest” of the child, that school must immediately enroll the homeless child or youth (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This is the standard regardless if the child or youth lacks the normally required records for school enrollment, such as birth certificates, immunization records, individualized education programs (IEPs), or proof of residency. In the event the child or youth does not have medical records, immunizations, or health records, the enrolling school must immediately contact the LEA liaison, who is charged with helping the student gain those records. In addition, the school must immediately contact the previous school attended to obtain all relevant academic records.

To facilitate stability in academic settings and the student’s continued attendance at the school of origin, SEAs and LEAs must ensure that transportation is provided, if requested by parents or guardians (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). To this end, transportation to and from the student’s school of origin must be provided by, or arranged for, the student as long as he or she lives within the area governed by the LEA. If the student were to move to an area governed by another LEA, but continued to attend the school of origin, the two LEAs would be required to agree on a method to share equally the costs and/or burden of transportation to and from the school of origin.

Students with Disabilities

The protections of children and youth with disabilities who are homeless are virtually the same under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as those for children who are not homeless. In some cases the protections given to children and youth who are homeless by the McKinney–Vento EHCY program add to the protections given under the IDEA and Section 504 (i.e., maintenance of school of origin). According to the Better Homes Fund (1999), children who are homeless have a higher incidence of learning disabilities and emotional disturbances than children who are not homeless. A study by Zima, Bussing, Forness, and Benjamin (1997) found that nearly half (45%) of the children in a Southern California shelter were in need of evaluation for special education, but only about a quarter (23%) of those with a disability had ever received testing or services.

In addition, the highly mobile nature of families who are homeless make the continuation of special education and related services difficult as the transition between schools can delay implementation of IEPs. McKinney–Vento EHCY ensures that the parent or guardian of a student is allowed to choose whether to remain in the school of origin for the length of homelessness (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Provisions for families to attend the school of origin apply even when families who are homeless move across state lines (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). If the family decides to remain in the school of origin, that school is responsible for providing special education and related services to the student. Though the transportation regulations in the McKinney–Vento EHCY program were written to address general education students, in the case of a special education student, transportation costs would be paid through an agreement between the LEA in which the student currently resides and the LEA in which the school of origin is located. In the event the two LEAs cannot come to an agreement on shared responsibility, the costs for transportation will be divided equally among them. Finally, though the McKinney–Vento EHCY program requires that schools waive enrollment requirements with regard to specific documentation required, lack of education records for students with disabilities is likely to lead to an interruption of services. Therefore, contacting the student’s previous school immediately to obtain these records is critical.

Practice Considerations

In conjunction with the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Jackson (2004) issued strategies to improve the education for children who are homeless. These strategies emphasize the need for interagency collaboration and the development of policies and procedures designed to eliminate red tape and to enhance efforts to collect data in a meaningful and accurate manner. The remainder of this article provides information regarding the following issues: transportation, child find activities, effective communication and data collection practices, outreach to the homeless population, and the allocation of funds to raise awareness.

Transportation

One of the key issues in the education of students who are homeless is transportation to the school of origin. This issue was the subject of a special education due process hearing in the state of New Jersey with the Piscataway Board of Education (2001). In this hearing, two children with specific learning disabilities were residing in a motel outside of the school district they had attended prior to their family being evicted from their home. The two students had stopped attending school following the eviction because the mother allegedly did not trust the school district to provide safe transportation to and from school. In this case, the impartial hearing officer concluded that the school district was to provide appropriate transportation to those students identified as homeless, which they did, and instructed the parent to cooperate with the decision and continue receiving special education and related services for the children.

Though the hearing officer found in favor of the school district, we should, at the very least, consider the concerns of the parent. Given the many factors that could have contributed to a family’s homelessness, it is not unreasonable to speculate that families who are homeless may be wary of the system, or services provided to them. For example, parents often fear that if the authorities or school personnel find out that they are homeless, their children may be taken into custody. Time and again these families fall into a pattern of victimization and depression that can leave them feeling vulnerable, alone, and incapable of navigating the often elaborate bureaucratic regulations that can be a part of receiving services. Although the facts of the Piscataway case are unclear with regard to the relationship the family had with the school prior to this hearing, or the transportation arrangements that were offered, in situations like this schools can help facilitate a less confrontational resolution by expressing empathy and working with parents to find a solution. In addition, the California Department of Education (2011) suggested coordinating with local housing authorities and placement agencies to house students near their school of origin, rerouting school buses, providing passes for public transportation, designating a district-level point of contact, using approved van or taxi services, and purchasing gas vouchers for parents.

Child Find

As detailed in studies by Menke (1998) and Zima et al. (1997), children and youth who are homeless have a higher incidence of emotional disturbances and learning disabilities than the average nonhomeless peer but are often lacking the necessary evaluations to receive special education and related services. For example, Menke found that more than half of the children living in a homeless shelter had depressive symptoms and one quarter (26%) needed additional evaluations for mental health problems. She suggested that the mental health of homeless school children should be addressed as they lack many of the protective factors of nonhomeless peers and have the potential for developing mental health problems. A protective factor is a condition that, when present, acts as a defense against influences that may negatively affect the health and well-being of a person (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2011). Schrepferman, Eby, Snyder, and Stropes (2006) cite the development of close, dependable relationships with peers and adults as a major protective factor in combating the onset of depression and other mental health issues. For children who are homeless, the development of these relationships can be negatively affected by both the frequency of change in domicile and exposure to adults with mental health issues and drug and alcohol problems while living in shelters. The noted absence of protective factors such as stable social connections and home life, which are normally present in nonhomeless peers, could suggest that efforts to identify and evaluate children who are homeless for special education and related services should be stepped up.

Exacerbating matters further is the current trend toward a response to intervention (RTI) approach to evaluating students for special education and related services. RTI typically requires the student to be enrolled in a school for a period for staff to properly assess factors that must be considered in the eligibility process, including the (a) student’s baseline performance level, (b) response to a series of interventions, (c) stability of the student’s current school and instructional environment, (d) intensity of the interventions, and (e) fidelity with which they are implemented. Continuously shifting schools would make this process difficult if not impossible to complete for a student. For example, in some areas of the country there are large school districts with more than 300 schools, as is the case with Hillsborough County in Florida, where the entire county makes up the boundaries for the district. In this case, a student could move up to 30 miles and have the potential for remaining within the boundaries of the school of origin. It is therefore likely that the method of evaluation of students with disabilities would be consistent (utilizing a discrepancy model as opposed to RTI), and in the event RTI is in effect, the process would be fairly consistent in the new school. However, in other parts of the country districts can be smaller and have as few as 8 schools, as is the case in Anderson, South Carolina, where the county is divided up into smaller districts. In this case, or when a student lives near the border of a district, it is conceivable that a student could move as little as one mile and find himself or herself in a new school district with different methods of evaluation and, in the case of RTI, a completely different system of implementation. In either case it is imperative that schools make the data collected on students who are homeless accessible to future schools in a timely manner.

To aid in the identification and evaluation of children who are homeless and may have a disability, Jackson (2004) suggested developing with homeless shelters outreach measures that are designed to alert school personnel when a student in need of special education evaluation is living in a temporary homeless shelter. Furthermore, when children who are homeless are identified as being in need of evaluation, provisions could be made to expedite the evaluation process. To this end, the state of California Department of Education (2011) has suggested that school districts should make funds available to expedite assessments of students who are homeless. Outreach measures could also include coordinating with community service agencies (e.g., shelters, soup kitchens, food banks, public health departments), using enrollment and withdrawal forms to inquire about living situations, conducting family nights to offer health checks, services, and resources, and visiting homes to determine doubled-up situations and verification. For example, posters detailing the educational rights of families who are homeless could be placed in homeless shelters, places known to have a high population of students who are homeless, and school attendance offices.

Establish Effective Communication and Data Collection Practices

Due to insufficient or limited data collection methods utilized by LEAs, social service agencies, and homeless shelters, along with the transient nature of the population, gaining accurate information pertaining to the number of children and youth who are homeless in the country is problematic. Therefore, it is also difficult to gain an accurate picture of the number of children with disabilities who are currently homeless and in need of special education and related services. Furthermore, communication practices and effective collaboration between social service agencies, such as child welfare, and LEAs have been criticized for being ineffective, particularly as they relate to the continuity of services for the education of children (Stone, D’Andrade, & Austin, 2007).

Inefficient or nonexistent communication among parents of children who are homeless, social service agencies, homeless shelters, and LEAs can also be a limiting factor in the evaluation and implementation of services for students with disabilities who are homeless. For example, if inefficient communication were to exist between a homeless shelter and a school, the school could be unaware of a student’s disability for a prolonged period before screening the student. This could be increasingly problematic in the case of unaccompanied youth, who may not have the appropriate skills with which to advocate for themselves. For these reasons, it is imperative that LEAs communicate with the state coordinators for the McKinney–Vento EHCY program as well as with local homeless liaisons and social service agencies to ensure that students who are homeless receive those special education services for which they are eligible.

The California Department of Education (2011) suggested the development of policies that ensure the transfer of school records, including special education records, happens in an expedited manner for students who are homeless. In many states the means with which to facilitate the transfer of special education records already exists. These states have created or purchased online systems that facilitate the creation of IEPs and house the data in a central database. For instance, the state of South Carolina uses a system called Excent Online, and it is only a matter of policy that eliminates the instant transfer of the latest IEP for a student with a disability from his or her previous school to a new school located anywhere in the state. The same type of system could be implemented regarding discipline records, behavior monitoring systems and interventions, and tracking of RTI methods and data. A system that facilitated this type of information sharing between schools and school districts would improve prompt compliance to the student’s IEP for students who are homeless and ensure the student is being served in the appropriate setting with the necessary supports.

Allocation of Funds to Raise Awareness

It is important that policy makers, social service agencies, school administrators, and teachers are aware of the difficulties students who are homeless face when trying to access public education. Although very limited research exists on the subject, it is likely that many school employees come into contact with students who are homeless on a daily basis, yet they are unaware of the legal rights of these students. Knowledge of these rights and the responsibilities of LEAs may help school employees deliver more timely services to this population. For example, as previously stated, the definition of homeless used under the McKinney–Vento program includes families that are “doubled-up” in a residence. If an educator was aware of this situation, and the student experienced distress concerning an upcoming move that the student believed would result in changing schools, the educator could schedule a meeting with the parent to discuss alternatives.

Jackson (2004) suggested that federal funds, such as those available through state improvement grants, be used to fund efforts to raise awareness of students with disabilities who are homeless. This could be done through professional development activities in school districts. Another way would be to conduct an ad campaign targeting teachers and school personnel that discusses legal aspects and issues related to youth who are homeless.

Conclusion

Children who are homeless experience a host of challenges, including finding shelter, gaining access to adequate food, and dealing with a multitude of health-related issues. The McKinney–Vento Act is intended to provide some relief to these challenges through providing funds to the states, requiring a stable school environment, and developing regulations to expedite, and in fact bypass, documentation requirements for school enrollment.

Unfortunately, high mobility rates associated with homelessness often impede children from receiving adequate and continuous educational services, particularly among students with disabilities. Although there are administrative hearings that have attempted to resolve issues regarding residency, guardianship, and transportation, these adversarial relationships may be inevitable from time to time. However, educational agencies are obligated to be proactive and develop “child-centered” processes that will address the educational needs of all children, and in particular children with disabilities, in a systematic and seamless manner. Recommended actions include educating families regarding their child’s educational rights, collaborating with social service agencies, and providing assistance with transportation issues to help ensure a continuity of services.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bassuk

E. L.

Weinreb

L. F.

Buckner

J. C.

Browne

Salomon

Bassuk

S. S.

(1996). The characteristics and needs of sheltered homeless and low-income housed mothers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276(8), 640–646.

Better Homes Fund. (1999). Homeless children: America’s new outcasts. Newton Center, MA: Author.

California Department of Education. (2011). Program strategies. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/hs/cy/strategies.asp

Cunningham

Harwood

Hall

(2010, May). Residential instability and the McKinney–Vento Homeless Children and Education Program: What we know, plus gaps in research. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990).

Jackson

(2004, January). Homelessness and students with disabilities: Educational rights and challenges. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/forum.htm

Kidd

S. A.

(2007). Youth homelessness and social stigma. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 291–299.

McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq. (1987).

Menke

E. M.

(1998). The mental health of homeless school-age children. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 11(3), 87–98.

10.

Murphy

(2011). Homeless children and youth at risk: The educational impact of displacement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16(1), 38–55.

11.

National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. (2010, July). A critical moment: Child & youth homelessness in our nation’s schools. Retrieved from http://www.firstfocus.net/sites/default/files/HomelessEd_0.pdf

12.

National Center for Homeless Education. (2008). Identifying students in homeless situations. Greensboro, NC: Author.

13.

National Center on Family Homelessness. (2009). America’s youngest outcasts: State report card on child homelessness. Newton, MA: Author.

14.

National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006, June). McKinney–Vento Act (NCH Fact Sheet No. 18). Washington, DC: Author.

15.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).

16.

Piscataway Board of Education, 34 IDELR 253 (SEA NJ 2001).

17.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973).

18.

Roy

Haley

Leclerc

Sochanski

Boudreau

Boivin

(2004). Mortality in a cohort of street youth in Montreal. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292, 569–574.

19.

Schrepferman

L. M.

Eby

Snyder

Stropes

(2006). Early affiliation and social engagement with peers: Prospective risk and protective factors for childhood depressive behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(1), 50–61.

20.

Stone

D’Andrade

Austin

(2007). Educational services for children in foster care: Common and contrasting perspectives of child welfare and education stakeholders. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 53–70.

21.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). U.S. Department of Education’s McKinney–Vento report to Congress for fiscal year 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

22.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Education for homeless children and youth program Title VII-B of the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.

23.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). U.S. Department of Education’s McKinney–Vento report to Congress for fiscal year 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008, February). Questions and answers on special education and homelessness. Washington, DC: Author.

25.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009, April). Guidance on McKinney–Vento homeless children and youth program funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Washington, DC: Author.

26.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2011). Protective factors. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors/protective.cfm

27.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. (2009). The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to Congress. Retrieved from http://www.hudhre.info/documents/3rdHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf

28.

Zima

Bussing

Forness

Benjamin

(1997). Sheltered homeless children: Their eligibility and unmet need for special education evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 236–240.