Can We Talk? Opportunity, Challenge, and Importance in Data

Report
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 crosssystems collaborations and data sharing.

Identify concrete action steps and recommendations applicable
both to educators and homeless service providers
Importance and Benefits of CrossSystems 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 CrossSystems 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
Head Start/Early Head
Start
Are there program
requirements related
to homeless children?
Is data collected on
homeless children?
Yes
Yes
Maternal, Infant, Early
No
Childhood Home Visiting
Program (MIECHV)
No
IDEA Part C
Yes
No
Preschool Development
Grants
Yes
No
Child Care Development No
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 PointIn-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 DataGathering/Data-Sharing

Q & A on Barriers and Strategies for Response
Contact Information

Carie Bires (Ounce of Prevention Fund, Chicago IL)
[email protected]

Jimiyu Evans (Project Community Connections, Atlanta GA)
[email protected]

Chuck Kieffer (Cloudburst Consulting Group, Ann Arbor MI)
[email protected]

Matt Aronson (Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC)
[email protected]

John McLaughlin (Department of Education, Washington, DC)
[email protected]

similar documents