Detailed Information on the
Education for Homeless Children and Youths Assessment

Complete monitoring visits to all States and supplement these monitoring visits with desk monitoring of at least 15 States in FY 2008.

Work with Congress on correcting statutory design flaws during the upcoming reauthorization.

In fiscal year 2008, develop an action plan for improving student assessment participation rates.

Establish baseline data and ambitious targets for the program's efficiency measure, and post program performance information on the program's Web page.

Measure: Percentage of homeless students meeting or exceeding State proficiency level or standard in mathematics.

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of homeless students meeting or exceeding State proficiency level or standard in reading.

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of homeless students who participate annually in State assessments in mathematics.

Explanation:The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program ensures that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available to other children and gives States needed assistance in providing homeless children and youth with learning opportunities that enable them to make significant academic progress. The program facilitates the enrollment of homeless students in school and gives them access to services available to other children. Homeless children face many barriers that impede their educational access and success, and this program helps to reduce and eliminate those barriers. The performance measures that focus on the percentage of homeless students who participate in State assessments help measure the extent to which school systems are holding themselves accountable for the educational outcomes of their students.

Measure: Percentage of homeless students who participate annually in State assessments in reading.

Explanation:The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program ensures that all homeless children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available to other children and gives States needed assistance in providing homeless children and youth with learning opportunities that enable them to make significant academic progress. The program facilitates the enrollment of homeless students in school and gives them access to services available to other children. Homeless children face many barriers that impede their educational access and success, and this program helps to reduce and eliminate those barriers. The performance measures that focus on the percentage of homeless students who participate in State assessments help measure the extent to which school systems are holding themselves accountable for the educational outcomes of their students.

Measure: The number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to ensure that children and youth experiencing homelessness have equal access to the same, free appropriate education, including a public preschool education, as provided to other children and youth, and to ensure that they have access to the education and other services that will enable them to meet challenging State standards.

Evidence: Mc-Kinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, Section 721

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program is designed to address both the challenges that homeless students face and the challenges that the schools serving them face in ensuring that these children receive the educational services that they deserve. In 2003-2004, over 600,000 school-age children enrolled in school experienced homelessness. This number has been rising for many years. The high mobility experienced by homeless students puts these students at risk for dropping out and school failure. Schools who serve these homeless students face many challenges in identifying children and youth who meet the program definition of homeless and assuring these students the protections provided in the McKinney-Vento Act, the program's authorizing statute. Schools must immediately enroll homeless students, including preschool age students and unaccompanied youth, often without documentation; provide transportation for these students to their school of origin; and provide homeless children access to school programs and services. School districts also face challenges in coordinating their activities and services with other local service agencies.

Evidence: Report to the President and Congress On the Implementation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program provides Federal funding to schools districts to assist them in providing the protections for homeless students included in the McKinney-Vento Act, the program's authorizing statute. These protections did not exist prior to the enactment of the McKinney-Vento Act and are still not found in other statutes. Consequently, the program acts as a driver to encourage States and school districts to improve the educational services they provide to homeless children and youth. The Act requires every local educational agency (LEA) to designate a local liaison to assist homeless children and youth with enrollment, raise awareness of issues related to homelessness and homeless education, and oversee the implementation of the law. The law also clarifies the definition of "homeless," facilitating determination of eligibility and the provision of services. Finally, the requirements for immediate school enrollment of homeless children and youth and for allowing them to remain in and receive transportation to and from their school of origin have greatly increased school stability and educational continuity.

Evidence: Report to Congress; McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, Section Section 722(g)(6) (local liaison), Section 725 (2)(A) (definition of "homeless children and youths"), and Section 722(g)(2)(C) and 722(g)(4) (enrollment and services)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is free of major flaws. The Department allocates funds to States through a formula based on each State's share of Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (which are largely based on counts of children living in poverty). After reserving funds for State-level activities, such as providing direct services to homeless children and youth, establishing a State coordinator position, and providing professional development to school personnel to help them respond to problems unique to homeless children and youth, States then make subgrants to LEAs, which may use the funds for such activities as providing enriched supplemental instruction, transportation, professional development, referrals to health care, and other services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children, including preschool-aged children, and youth. Providing funding across States and districts guarantees important protections to all students. One issue that might be addressed in reauthorization concerns the percentage of funds that States may reserve for State-level activities. A State that receives an allocation greater than the State minimum allocation must subgrant competitively to LEAs at least 75 percent of its allocation. A State that receives the minimum State allocation must subgrant competitively to LEAs at least 50 percent of its allocation. Nine States that, prior to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education by the No Child Left Behind Act, received minimal funding are no longer allowed to utilize the greater percentage for State-level support and have had to reduce the level of their State-level support below that which higher- and lower-funded States are able to provide. The reduction of State-level support in these States affects local districts, particularly those without subgrants.

Evidence: McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, Section 722(e)(1)

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Funds are awarded to States based on each State's share of Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) (which is largely based on counts of children living in poverty). LEAs that wish to receive funds are required to conduct a needs assessment to ensure proper targeting of program funds; States consider LEAs' needs assessments when making decisions about awarding subgrants to LEAs. To be competitive, LEA applications should include information about how they plan to use program funds to address the needs stated in the assessment. LEAs may use the funds only for services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

Evidence: Needs assessment requirement -- McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, Section 723(b)(1)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department has established the following two long-term performance measures for the program: (1) the percentage of homeless students in grades 3 through 8 who meet or exceed State proficiency standards in reading/language arts; and (2) the percentage of homeless students in grades 3 through 8 who meet or exceed State proficiency standards in mathematics. These measures focus on student academic achievement to ensure that States and LEAs are providing a high-quality education to their homeless students.

Evidence:

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Department has established the following targets for the program's two long term measures: (1) by 2014, 100 percent of homeless students in grades 3 through 8 will meet or exceed State proficiency standards in reading/language arts; and (2) by 2014, 100 percent of homeless students in grades 3 through 8 will meet or exceed State proficiency standards in mathematics. These targets are ambitious and are aligned with the No Child Left Behind Act's goal that all students will be proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014. Baselines for these measures were established in 2004; the baselines are 36 percent in both reading and mathematics.

Evidence:

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Department has established four annual performance measures for the program. The annual performance measures are (1) the percentage of homeless children and youth, in grades 3 through 8, included in statewide assessments in reading, as reported by LEA subgrantees; (2) the percentage of homeless children and youth, in grades 3 through 8, included in statewide assessments in mathematics, as reported by LEA subgrantees; (3) the percentage of homeless students, in grades 3 through 8, meeting or exceeding State proficiency standards in reading/language arts and (4) the percentage of homeless students, in grades 3 through 8, meeting or exceeding State proficiency standards in mathematics. These measures focus on student participation in statewide tests and student academic achievement to ensure that States and LEAs are providing a high-quality education to their homeless students.

Evidence:

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The following targets have been established for the program's four annual performance measures: (1) by 2008, 100 percent of homeless students and youth, grades 3 through 8, will be included in statewide assessments in reading/ language arts; (2) by 2008, 100 percent of homeless students and youth, grades 3 through 8, will be included in statewide assessments in mathematics; (3) by 2007, 50 percent of homeless children and youth, grades 3 through 8, will meet or exceed State proficiency standards in reading/language arts (100 percent by 2014); and (4) by 2007, 50 percent of homeless children and youth, grades 3 through 8, will meet or exceed State proficiency standards in mathematics (100 percent by 2014). The Department established incremental annual targets for all four targets based on the ambitious goal of reaching 100 percent by 2008 for the two student participation in assessments measures and by 2014 for the student proficiency in State assessments measures. Baselines for these measures were set in 2005 for the participation measures and in 2004 for the proficiency measures. Baselines for the measures of the percentage of homeless children and youth, grades 3 through 8, included in statewide assessments are 50 percent for reading/ language arts and 49 percent for mathematics. Baselines for the measures of the percentage of homeless children and youth, grades 3 through 8, meeting or exceeding State proficiency standards are 36 percent for both reading/ language arts and mathematics.

Evidence:

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States and districts commit to and work toward the goals of the program. In order to receive grants, State Educational Agencies (SEAs) submit a plan to the Department that describes how they will implement the program and ensure that homeless students receive the educational services that they are entitled to receive. SEAs also submit performance reports. SEAs generally submit these reports containing full and accurate data and on time. The Department is currently working with the States that are not yet providing complete data to ensure that they understand what data is needed and the definitions. School districts submit needs assessments which describe the actions they will take in serving homeless students. The Department determines how well partners are meeting the program's goals through meetings twice a year with State coordinators, monitoring visits, and compliance audit reports that look at local needs assessments.

Evidence: State plans, State performance reports, monitoring reports, compliance audit reports

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department is not conducting an independent evaluation of this program. However, the Department annually collects program performance data from States. In 2006, the Department submitted a report to Congress on the status of the education of homeless children and youth and the status of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program; the Department is required by statute to submit this report. In addition, the technical assistance center contracted by the Department for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program recently conducted a survey of State coordinators to learn how the program is being implemented at the State and district levels.

Evidence: Report to Congress; State coordinators survey

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ED had not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels because the program is currently unable to link resource allocations with performance levels. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that ED's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E). ED's 07 integrated budget and performance plan includes the program's annual and long-term goals.

Evidence:

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has adopted annual and long-term performance measures and ambitious targets for these measures. The data collected for these measures are used by the Department in strategic planning for the program in order to provide effective technical assistance to grantees and to monitor the program. The program has an internal strategic plan that provides a framework for monitoring grantee performance and program management. In 2004, the Department revised the monitoring protocol, resulting in better program data. Monitoring helps the Department determine how to advise States and revise program policy. For example, the Department has discovered through monitoring that States are often not including all of the questions that are needed in the protocols that they use to monitor LEAs to ensure that the LEAs are implementing the program correctly. After monitoring, the Department issues findings that States and/or LEAs must correct in order to manage the program properly and provide accurate performance data.

Evidence: Revised monitoring protocol

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department conducts an annual Federal data collection that includes State and local school district performance data. The Department is in the process of implementing stricter Federal data collection requirements in order to ensure more accurate data. Beginning with data reported for 2005, States have been required to submit data that are verifiable and school-based, rather than providing estimates as they did in the past. As a result, data collected for homeless students have improved greatly, and more homeless students are being included in State and local accountability systems. In addition to the data that the Department uses for the program's performance measures (student participation in State assessments and student proficiency in mathematics and reading), the data includes information about where students served by the program are living, the educational and support services that the students receive, and the barriers that LEAs face in serving homeless students. The Department and States use these data to ensure that students are receiving the educational and support services that they need.

Evidence: Federal data from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 submitted by State coordinators

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED's managers, in their employee performance plans, are held accountable for achieving tangible indicators of success in reaching program goals and supporting the Department's Strategic Plan. SEAs disburse funds according to their approved State plans; Federal desk and field monitoring ensures that State and subgrantee plans are followed. In addition, the program's technical assistance contractor must adhere to an established timeline for producing contract deliverables and has an annual budget broken out by task; monthly performance reports enable the Department to track performance. Finally, the Department conducts monitoring visits to States. The Department reports the findings of these monitoring visits, an average of two per State, to States, and the Department frequently puts conditions on State grants to ensure that the States correct any findings that result from the visit.

Evidence: EDPAS agreements; State plans, LEA subgrant plans, and State monitoring reports; technical assistance task order contract timeline and deliverables table, annual budget, and monthly reports

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the purposes intended. Program monitoring ensures that States are implementing their programs and expending funds in accordance with program requirements and their approved State plans.

Evidence: Financial reports from monitoring visits

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Department recently established the following efficiency measure for the program: The number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits. However, the Department has not yet established baselines or targets for the measures, but expects to do so in the fall of 2006.

Evidence:

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Collaboration and coordination takes place at the Federal, State, and local levels with many programs, including Title I; special education; migrant education; the U.S. Department of Agriculture food and nutrition programs; the Department of Health and Human Services Homeless and Runaway Youth Program; the Federal Interagency Council on Homelessness; and Head Start. In the Department, the program conducts joint monitoring visits with the Title I-A, Even Start, and Neglected and Delinquent programs. For example, the Department: (1) initiated discussions with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that facilited a revision of its food and nutrition guidelines so that homeless children can receive free meals at their schools upon identification by the local homeless education liaison, shelter staff, or other appropriate contact; (2) collaborated with staff from the Department of Health and Human Services' Runaway and Homeless Youth act program to develop a memo encouraging stronger collaboration between youth shelters and local school districts; and (3) participated in a national meeting sponsored by the U.S. Department of ousing and Urban Development convened for the purpose of revising its Homeless Management Information System to capture data on homeless families and children.

Evidence: Notes from Federal meetings and conference calls; policies, memos, and laws developed jointly??U.S. Department of Agriculture law that enables local liaisons and shelter providers to authorize homeless students for free school meals; memo for greater coordination between schools and Homeless and Runaway Youth shelters; migrant and homeless education brief; planning and participation in the Federal Interagency Council's family policy academies; national symposium on Title I and homeless education programs (http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/ guidance.doc -- Section M); Federal guidance on collaboration between local homeless education and Title I programs; Federal monitoring reports

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program. Through monitoring protocols and visits to States, the Department is working with States to resolve any data, carryover, or allocation problems that States may have. In addition, the Department does fiduciary monitoring of States, including monitoring of the GAPS system for drawdowns and ensuring that when schools close, funds are shifted to other areas of need.

Evidence: Monitoring reports, State activity budgets, and LEA subgrantee budgets

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: While material internal management deficiencies have not been identified for this program, the program has put in place a system to identify potential problems. For example, the Department has taken systematic steps through audits and monitoring visits to make sure that States are managing the program properly. In 2004, the Department revised the monitoring process for the program, including an improved monitoring protocol. The Department has also improved its oversight of State and local school districts by implementing a monitoring schedule. Twenty six State homeless education programs were monitored between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, in 2005-2006, 19 additional states will be monitored.

Evidence: Program staff monitor excessive drawdowns of funds to prevent high-risk situations.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department maintains information on grantee activities through consolidated annual reports, site visits and compliance monitoring, and technical assistance activities. In particular, ED conducts monitoring visits to States to ensure that the program is being implemented correctly. For example, the Department discovered through monitoring that many LEAs were paying Homeless program local liaison salaries entirely with Title I funds. Although LEAs may use Title I funds to pay for part of the liaison's salary, paying the entire salary with Title I funds is a violation of the prohibition against using program funds to supplant State or local effort. In a three-year period, the Department monitors all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; States generally respond fairly quickly to findings from these monitoring visits.

Evidence: Monitoring reports and annual data collection reports from SEAs

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Department recently sent the 2006 Report to the President and Congress On Implementation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program to Congress and posted the report on the Department's website. The Report includes information collected from States and LEAs about student participation in State assessments and student proficiency in reading and mathematics.

Evidence: The 2006 Report to the President and Congress On Implementation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is available on the Internet at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/rpt2006.doc

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Department established baseline data for the program's long-term performance measures in 2004 -- 36 percent in both reading and mathematics. Performance targets for 2005 were 34 percent in reading and 26 percent in mathematics. In 2005, 42 percent of students met or exceeded the State proficiency level in reading and 41 percent did so in mathematics. Targets for 2006 are 43 percent in both subjects, 2007 targets are 50 percent, and 2014 targets are 100 percent.

Evidence: State performance data

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Department established baseline data for the two annual performance measures looking at the percentage of homeless students who participate annually in State assessments in reading or mathematics in 2005 -- 50 percent in reading and 49 percent in mathematics. Performance targets for reading were 53 percent in reading and 52 percent in mathematics in 2006. The Department established baseline data for the two performance measures looking at the percentage of homeless students meeting or exceeding the State proficiency level in reading or mathematics in 2004 -- 36 percent in both reading and mathematics. The performance target for reading was 34 percent and the performance target for mathematics was 26 percent in 2005. In 2005, 42 percent of students met or exceeded the State proficiency level in reading and 41 percent did so in mathematics.

Evidence: State performance data

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Department just recently established an efficiency measure for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program -- the number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits. Data will be available in the fall of 2006.

Evidence:

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no comparable programs. Although most States and LEAs serve homeless students, the Federal requirements and funding ensure that homeless students have equal access to the same, free appropriate education that other children receive and that the educational services that they receive are of high quality and linked to State standards. It would be too costly to perform a comparison of the services that students receive under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program compared to the education that they would receive in the absence of the Federal program.

Evidence:

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Department is not conducting an evaluation of this program.

Evidence: