Can We Talk? Opportunity, Challenge, and Importance in Data Sharing between Educational and Homeless Service Provider Systems National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth Annual Conference – Kansas City, MO Monday, October 27, 2014

General Focus of Session Increasing understanding of the responsibilities, challenges, and emerging opportunities in collaboration and data sharing between education providers and homeless service providers  Homeless Programs Perspective  K-12 Perspective  Early Childhood Perspective  Federal erspective

Panelists Carie Bires Policy Manager, Ounce of Prevention Fund, Chicago IL Jimiyu Evans Director of Operations, Project Community Connections, Atlanta GA Chuck Kieffer Director, Cloudburst Consulting Group, Ann Arbor MI Matt Aronson Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, HUD John McLaughlin Coordinator of Homeless, Neglected, and Delinquent Education Programs, Department of Education

Learning Objectives Increase understanding of opportunities/benefits of cross-systems collaboration & data sharing at the state and/or local levels Increase understanding of the data collection and collaboration requirements of HEARTH/HMIS rules and the McKinney-Vento Education Act as well as those of other relevant state and federal initiatives touching on lives of homeless children. Increase understanding of the barriers and challenges associated with cross-systems data sharing Share specific examples of local efforts to implement cross- systems collaborations and data sharing. Identify concrete action steps and recommendations applicable both to educators and homeless service providers

Importance and Benefits of Cross- Systems Collaboration and Data Sharing HUD homeless assistance programs provide important services to help stabilize homeless children, youth, and families -- thereby contributing to educational success Conversely, educational services and supports help to support housing stability and prevent homelessness Housing Stability Education

Stable Housing Positively Impacts Educational Outcomes Children & youth in families with stable housing: ◦ Attend school more consistently ◦ Perform better academically ◦ Experience less stress/mental health trauma ◦ Are less likely to be disruptive in the school setting

Educational Services and Systems Also Impact Housing Stability Children experiencing success / achievement in educational settings decrease disruptive stress in the family setting Educational services and supports available to homeless children & youth decrease stress on parents dealing with multiple challenges of homelessness

Other Benefits of Cross-Systems Collaboration and Data Sharing Increases efficacy of cross-systems referrals Allows LEAs to focus on education-specific barriers, while partnering with community-based housing providers Allows CoCs to focus on housing stability and related supports, while partnering with local educational providers Decreases duplication of efforts (and related costs) in services provision and supportive interventions

Benefits of Collaboration in Cross- Systems Counting Accurate and consistent counts at local, state, and national levels help: ◦ Identify and respond to problems ◦ Monitor impact of programs and achievement of goals ◦ Inform responsive policy and practice ◦ Increase ability to make the case for systems change

New HEARTH Rules Obligate CoC Collaboration with Educational Systems Ensure School Enrollment Ensure Access to Services Ensure Collaboration in Planning

CoC Educational Obligations: Ensure School Enrollment Homeless service providers must ensure that all children are enrolled in early childhood education programs or in school, as appropriate, and connected to appropriate services within the community, e.g.: ◦ Policies must be in place to support enrolling all children in school or in early childhood programs, as appropriate. ◦ Recipients must designate staff to ensure children are enrolled in school and connected to appropriate McKinney-Vento and community services.

CoC Educational Obligations: Ensure Access to Services CoCs must collaborate with local education agencies to ensure that individuals and families who become or remain homeless are informed of their eligibility for McKinney-Vento educational services, e,g.: ◦ All CoC recipients must inform families and unaccompanied youth of their educational rights; ◦ All CoC recipients must collaborate with local school district liaison(s) as a matter of policy and practice, and when a new child or youth enters the program;

CoC Educational Obligations: Ensure Collaboration in Planning The CoC must have a process for involving local education partners in the CoC planning process, e.g.: ◦ CoC works with school district liaison(s) to develop safeguards to protect homeless students from discrimination based on homelessness ◦ The CoC has a working committee to address homelessness and education for families and unaccompanied youth that includes local education stakeholders ◦ Local school district liaison(s) are included in the CoC’s strategic planning activities CoC and ESG funding recipients must have a joint process in place with school administrators to identify families/children who are homeless or at risk ◦ LEAs are encouraged to contribute to Point-In-Time counts

Collaboration in Cross-Systems Planning and Counting Quick Comments from Panel and/or Audience on Role and Importance of Cross-Systems Collaboration

Data Collection Requirements: The Service Provider Perspective Basic Demographic Information - 20 data points Income & Health at Program Entry & Exit – 10 data points Barriers to Housing Stability – 35 data points  Tenant, Personal, Income Risk Factors for Homelessness – 20 data points Special Needs, Mental Health, Substance Abuse – 10 data points

Data Collection Requirements: The School’s Perspective Basic Demographic Information - 4 data points Georgia Department of Education – 10 data points McKinney Vento Homeless Services – 12 data points

CoC Requirements and Coordinated Assessment Appointment of Lead Agencies Assessment Data Collection ◦ SPDAT ◦ VI-SPDAT Ranking & Prioritization

KidsHome Collaborative (Atlanta, Georgia) Local School System Partner Rapid Re-housing Provider Partner Emergency Shelter & Transitional Housing Partner Employment & Benefits ◦ In service trainings ◦ Standardized referral and intake forms ◦ Sharing of HMIS data – pending ◦ Housing Stability, Academic Achievement, Reunification

Challenges & Barriers to Data Sharing at Local Level Buy-in on joining HMIS Accountability Data Collection on Children vs. Data Collection on Entire Family/Household Academic Data vs. Housing Stability Data

Other Barriers to Data Sharing Discrepancies in underlying data definitions and reporting requirements (e.g. data elements & timing of collection) No standardized methodology in LEAs for identifying homeless children Shortage of systems resources (including staffing) to commit to data gathering responsibilities Differences in “culture” re: data gathering expectations

Early Childhood Homelessness Data Landscape

Program Are there program requirements related to homeless children? Is data collected on homeless children? Head Start/Early Head Start Yes Maternal, Infant, Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV) No IDEA Part CYesNo Preschool Development Grants YesNo Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) No EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM DATA-GATHERING REQUIREMENTS

What are the Barriers? Identification of homeless families is still a challenge Data systems don’t include fields to collect information on housing status Few requirements to collect data on homelessness Data collected on homelessness not used for compliance

What Can We Do About It? Continue/improve training for all Update data collection instruments/data systems to capture housing status Include data and accountability mechanisms in advocacy efforts Review programs that have mandates related to homelessness and ensure mechanism for compliance

Other Approaches to Advancing Cross-Systems Collaborations Active outreach by LEAs/Head Start/Early Childhood Providers in homeless settings Cross-systems planning committees Focused engagement in promoting more robust Point- In-Time counts Shared engagement in design and development of Coordinated Assessment and Intake systems and protocols Cross-systems agreements and MOUs Linking participation to funding prioritization

Summary Perspectives Program requirements and assurances are only meaningful when programs are held accountable We can’t have accountability without data We all have a role to play

Collaboration in Planning and Counting: Views from the Federal Programs Perspective Housing & Homelessness: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Matt Aronson) K-12 and Preschool Education: Department of Education (John McLaughlin)

Let’s Talk! Examples of Effective Cross-Systems Planning Collaborations (K-12, Early Childhood) Examples of Effective Cross-Systems Program & Services Collaborations Examples of Effective Cross-Systems Data- Gathering/Data-Sharing Q & A on Barriers and Strategies for Response

Contact Information Carie Bires (Ounce of Prevention Fund, Chicago IL) Jimiyu Evans (Project Community Connections, Atlanta GA) Chuck Kieffer (Cloudburst Consulting Group, Ann Arbor MI) Matt Aronson (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC) John McLaughlin (Department of Education, Washington, DC)