	Background

		The Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

The EHCY program is the key federal education program targeted to  homeless children and youth, and, in school year 2011-12, more than 1.1  million were enrolled in our nation’s public schools, according to  Education data. In determining which districts to  fund, states are required to consider certain factors, such as the needs of  homeless children and youth enrolled in the school district, the types of  services to be provided under the program, and the extent to which the  services will be coordinated with other services available to homeless  children and youth. Selected School Districts Leveraged Existing Resources to Identify and Serve Homeless Students, but Faced Resource Limitations and Other Challenges

		Selected School Districts Largely Relied on Enrollment Forms and Referrals to Identify Homeless Students, but Faced Challenges and Noted Problems with Under-Identification

To identify homeless students, officials in a majority of school districts (13  of 20) said their districts systematically requested some information on  the housing status of new students using a form during the enrollment   Two of these districts also requested housing information from  process.every student every year to help identify eligible students whose housing  circumstances may have changed following enrollment. Despite ongoing efforts to identify homeless students through housing  surveys and referrals, officials in 8 out of the 20 districts we interviewed  noted a problem with the under-identification of homeless students. To help address the needs of homeless students, grantee school districts  in school year 2010-11 reported providing a variety of services, according  to Education’s survey (see fig. Officials in 11 of the 20 districts we interviewed cited challenges due to  limited staff availability or resources with which to serve homeless  students and adequately address their needs. In addition, the EHCY program  manager provides training and technical assistance to state program  coordinators. Federal and State Agencies Face Similar Barriers to Greater Collaboration

42 U.S.C. Education Currently Lacks a Comprehensive Oversight Plan and Faces Limitations in Using its Performance Data to Assess Program Results

		Education Has Protocols for Monitoring State EHCY Programs but Lacks a Plan to Ensure Oversight of All States

Education has protocols and procedures in place to monitor state EHCY  programs. monitoring of school districts; implementation of procedures to identify, enroll, and retain homeless  students by coordinating and collaborating with other program offices  and state agencies; provision of technical assistance to school districts; efforts to ensure that school district grant plans for services to eligible  homeless students meet all requirements;  compliance with statutory and other regulatory requirements  governing the reservation of funds for state-level coordination  activities; and prompt resolution of disputes. Between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, Education’s  policy was to monitor 50 states and 3 other areas (i.e., 53 “states”)least once during that 3-year time period and it followed this policy. Since Education  adopted this approach in fiscal year 2010, it has monitored 31 of the 53  states for the EHCY program—28 from October 2009 to September 2012  and 3 from October 2012 to July 2014. Education officials cited the shift to a risk-based approach to  monitoring the EHCY program, the more recent need to focus on ESEA  flexibility waiver monitoring, and a lack of staff capacity as the primary  reasons why they have not been able to monitor the states as frequently  in recent years as in the past. According to GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government, monitoring is a key management tool that helps  agencies assess the quality of performance over time and ensure that the   Additionally, one state EHCY program  problems are promptly resolved.coordinator we interviewed said that federal monitoring ensures a higher  level of compliance with the McKinney-Vento Act and that it is in a state’s  best interest to be monitored regularly. Such problems suggest inadequate state-level monitoring of school  districts, reinforcing the importance of effective federal monitoring of  states. Conclusions

The EHCY program, funded at about $65 million for fiscal year 2014, is  intended to remove barriers to educational achievement for homeless  students and provide them with access to critical services—such as  transportation to school and referrals for health care. Education concurred with our recommendation that, in order to ensure  compliance with the McKinney-Vento Act, the department should develop  a monitoring plan to ensure adequate oversight of the EHCY program. We selected  school districts, with assistance from state EHCY program coordinators,  to represent a mix of urban, suburban, and rural districts, as well as  districts that received EHCY program funds (grantees) and those that did  not (non-grantees). Education’s surveys collected information  on services school districts provided to homeless children and youth;  state and local collaboration efforts with other Education programs; and  how states monitored school districts, including any differences in  monitoring among grantee and non-grantee districts.
Why GAO Did This Study

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act established a grant program to help the nation's homeless students—more than one million in school year 2011-12—have access to public education. Under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth grant program, states and their school districts are required to identify homeless children and provide them with needed services and support. In fiscal year 2014, Education received about $65 million to administer this program. Education provided formula grants to states, which competitively awarded funds to school districts to help meet program requirements. GAO was asked to review program implementation and oversight.
GAO examined (1) how districts identify and serve homeless students and challenges they face (2) how Education and states collaborate with other service providers to address student needs and any barriers, and (3) the extent to which Education monitors program compliance. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, guidance, and reports, and analyzed Education's state and school district survey data from school year 2010-11. GAO also interviewed federal officials, and state and local officials in 20 school districts—representing a mix of urban, suburban, and rural districts and grant status—in four states, selected for geographic diversity and other characteristics, such as experience with natural disasters.

What GAO Found

To identify and serve homeless students under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program, officials in the 20 school districts where GAO conducted interviews reported conducting a range of activities to support homeless youth, but cited several challenges. With regard to GAO's interviews, 13 of the 20 districts identified homeless students through housing surveys at enrollment, while all 20 relied on referrals from schools or service providers. However, officials in 8 of the 20 districts noted that the under-identification of homeless students was a problem. Districts GAO reviewed provided eligible students with transportation to and from school, educational services, and referrals to other service providers for support such as health care or food assistance. Among the challenges that officials in the 20 districts cited were limited staff and resources to provide services, the cost of transportation, student stigma associated with homelessness, and responding to students made homeless by natural disasters. Nationally, school districts surveyed most recently in school year 2010-11 by the Department of Education (Education) reported providing many services while facing similar challenges.
Education's EHCY program manager and state program coordinators have collaborated with other government agencies and with private organizations by sharing information, participating in interagency councils on homelessness, and providing technical assistance to relevant staff. In addition, state EHCY program coordinators have provided training to school districts and helped connect local programs to ensure homeless students receive various services. However, federal and state officials frequently cited limited resources and differing federal definitions of homelessness as constraints to greater collaboration.
Education has protocols for monitoring state EHCY programs, but no plan to ensure adequate oversight of all states, though monitoring is a key management tool for assessing the quality of performance over time and resolving problems promptly. Prior to fiscal year 2010, it had been Education's policy to monitor 50 states and 3 area programs at least once during a 3-year period, and it did so for fiscal years 2007 to 2009. Subsequently, the department adopted a risk-based approach in fiscal year 2010 and monitored 28 states over the next 3 years. In fiscal year 2013, Education again changed its approach to EHCY program monitoring and has monitored 3 state programs since then. Department officials cited other priorities and a lack of staff capacity as reasons for the decrease in oversight. As a result, Education lacks assurance that states are complying with program requirements. GAO found gaps in state monitoring of districts that could weaken program performance, reinforcing the importance of effective federal monitoring of states.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education develop a plan to ensure adequate oversight of the EHCY program. Education concurred with our recommendation.