Staying in School

Abstract

The increasing number of homeless youth in the United States presents many social justice concerns, including issues of educational access, stigma, and self-advocacy. These problems become even more apparent when homelessness and educational attainment intersect. The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 was enacted to address these concerns. While some schools attempt to implement the law to benefit homeless youth, clear limitations in service delivery remain. This article explores the perspectives of homeless youth who were trying to remain in high school. From a social justice framework using qualitative analyses, three focus groups were conducted at a transitional living program in a large urban area. Focus group transcripts were coded to capture key themes identified by youth. These include knowledge of McKinney–Vento rights, self-disclosure of homelessness, the negative effects of homelessness, and factors that protect youth from dropping out. Finally, the authors explore implications for school-based service providers.

Keywords

education transition to adulthood homelessness social justice urban context dropout

The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §11431 et seq.; hereafter referred to as the McK-VAct) was first authorized by Congress in 1987 and was reauthorized most recently in 2007 as part of No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2002). It was created with the intent of providing educational access and stability for homeless and highly mobile children and youth. McK-V protects homeless students of ages 3 to 18 (or 22 if they are eligible for special education) and defines unaccompanied youth as minors

living in runaway shelters, abandoned buildings, cars, on the streets, or in other inadequate housing; children and youth denied housing by their families (sometimes referred to as “throwaway children and youth”); unaccompanied youth living doubled up with friends or family; and school-aged unwed mothers living in homes for unwed mothers because they have no other housing available.

In contrast to homeless families, very little research has captured the school experiences of unaccompanied youth who are eligible for services under McK-V provisions (Aviles de Bradley, 2008; Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002; Hyman, Aubry, & Klodawsky, 2011). The transient nature of homelessness combined with the self-perceived need for unaccompanied minors to evade police to avoid detection can make it extremely difficult for researchers to get an accurate picture of the prevalence of homelessness in youth. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (2012), it is estimated that there are 1.7 million unaccompanied youth below the age of 18. Given the difficulty of maintaining contact with homeless youth for the purposes of estimating prevalence, it is no surprise that there is little qualitative research on their experiences as well. Although some information is known about how the McK-V Act operates for homeless families, there is a dearth of research on how this act functions for unaccompanied youth. This study captures the perspectives of homeless youth regarding their experiences of being homeless during high school and their involvement or lack of involvement with rights obtained from their schools through the McK-V Act.

Literature Review

In prior generations, students who dropped out of high school might have secured an entry-level job or pursued an apprenticeship resulting in skill acquisition that could compensate for lack of formal education. Today, dropping out of high school is associated with negative outcomes such as lower wages and fewer promotions (Campolieti, Fang, & Gunderson, 2009). Furthermore, there are numerous benefits to graduating from high school versus dropping out, such as higher lifetime earnings (Card, 1999), lower incarceration risk (Lochner & Moretti, 2004), and better health (Grossman & Kaestner, 1997; Lleras-Muney, 2002).

The U.S. Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011) reported that in 2009, adults 18 to 67 who did not complete high school earned an average income of US$25,000, which is considerably lower than the average income of same-aged adults who completed high school. Furthermore, the drop-out rate of students living in low-income families is about five times greater than the rate of their peers from moderate- and high-income families (7.4% vs. 1.4%, respectively; NCES, 2011). In addition, it has been shown that unstable housing (Hyman et al., 2011) and school mobility (Gasper, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2012) both lead to increased rates of dropping out of school.

Given that data indicate a high correlation between dropping out of school and poverty, it can be argued that school is an important factor in accessing the opportunity for upward socioeconomic mobility. Many middle- and upper-middle-class youth have continuing access to financial and residential support from their parents in their post–high school years, whereas youth who grow up in socioeconomically disadvantaged families are expected to become independent at earlier ages (Cobb-Clark & Gørgens, 2014). Young adults who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often required to find their own housing while attempting to support themselves. Some have to “double-up” temporarily with various extended families or friends to avoid living on the street. Those youth who are forced or feel forced to seek independence at early ages are particularly at risk for becoming homeless due to lack of familial financial support in the event of job loss or illness.

Most unaccompanied youth come from families that are already suffering from residential instability and poverty (Paradise & Cauce, 2002). Youth from low socioeconomic backgrounds experience many of the same problems that homeless youth face, including mental and physical health issues (Rescorla, Parker, & Stolley, 1991). However, there is a growing understanding that homelessness is actually an extension and magnification of the negative effects of poverty (Biggar, 2001). Rates of depression and anxiety as well as disruptive behavior are higher for youth from low socioeconomic backgrounds than for youth raised in middle-class homes. Even when youth have comparably low socioeconomic levels in their families of origin, becoming a homeless youth increases the rates of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems compared with youth who are not homeless (Anooshian, 2005).

In addition to the problems mentioned above, homeless youth experience many other school-related issues. Research indicates that students who are homeless have lower reading and math scores, as well as slower rates of skill acquisition in these areas than housed students who are solely living in poverty or students who are in middle-class families (Cutuli et al., 2013; Fantuzzo & Perlamn, 2007; Obradović 2010). Moreover, the lack of a high school education perpetuates the cycle of disconnection and marginalization of homeless youth in society. Therefore, it would be desirable from a public policy—as well as a social justice—perspective to increase not only achievement levels but also graduation rates of this highly vulnerable group of students.

The primary provisions of McK-V mandate schools to enroll students within 48 hours who self-identify as homeless without requiring proof of residency and medical or immunization records (42 U.S.C. §11431.723(d)). Homeless students and their families are given a choice of continuing to attend their school of origin (at the time they become homeless), until they are permanently housed or transferred to a school near their current location (42 U.S.C. §11431.723(2)). The school district must also provide and fund transportation to either the school of origin or the new school within 48 hours. In addition, homeless students suspected of having disabilities are entitled to expedite evaluations for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was revised in 2004 (P.L. 101-476). This law ensures that students with disabilities are identified, protected, and accommodated in the educational system. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RYHA), revised in 2008 (P.L. 110-378), also helps unaccompanied youth meet their education goals by providing funding to independent agencies that coordinate emergency services, temporary shelter, long-term housing such as transitional living programs (TLPs), or case management services designed specifically for this population.

Theoretical Framework

The present study was conducted within a social justice theoretical framework. Researchers use social justice theory to critically examine the unequal distribution of power, wealth, and privilege in society. This framework provides a means to address the inherent injustice and unfairness of a society that is biased in favor of members of the majority culture as well as those of higher socioeconomic status (SES). Social justice is defined as “an overarching framework centered around (a) ensuring that all individuals are treated with respect and dignity and (b) protecting the rights and opportunities for all” (Shriberg& Fenning, 2009, p. 4). Social justice theory is an overarching perspective that encourages researchers to amplify the perspective of those people who often are unheard in research and in the larger society (Denzin, 2009). This perspective allows researchers to critically examine the impact of society’s institutions by understanding the experiences of the marginalized people themselves.

Social justice theory has not yet been used to explore the efficacy of the McK-V Act from the viewpoint of the recipients of the law. Therefore, this study will critically examine the intent of the McK-V Act and its written regulations, as well as the perspectives of unaccompanied youth regarding how the law was enacted and affected them in one urban school district. This article will expand the limited literature on homeless students’ attempts to attain educational equity and maintain school stability. In addition, the results and implications derived from this study will help inform best practices for school staff serving this population.

Research Questions

This research study was designed as a preliminary investigation of the effectiveness of the McK-V Act for unaccompanied youth (42 U.S.C. § 11301 et seq.). Using critical qualitative methods and a social justice framework, our research team explored homeless youths’ perspectives through focus groups conducted at a TLP in a large urban area. The focus groups targeted one main research question with three subquestions:

What are the experiences of unaccompanied youth in a large urban area in trying to access educational services under the McKinney–Vento Act?

Prior to the focus groups, to what extent, if any, were youth aware of their rights under the McKinney–Vento Act?

How does the McKinney–Vento Act work practically in terms of service delivery for unaccompanied youth?

What obstacles and supports did unaccompanied youth encounter in receiving services and attempting to enroll or stay in school while experiencing homelessness?

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were part of a larger study comparing the experiences of parents of preschool-age children, parents of school-age children, and unaccompanied youth in accessing school services under the McK-V Act (Wynne et al., 2014). After being informed about the purposes of the study, participants self-selected by volunteering to join focus groups. The design of this study utilized a convenience sample. This approach was chosen because it is a practical method to study homeless populations, which are very difficult to sample randomly (Abrams, 2010; Martins, 2008; Nyamathi, Leake, & Gelberg, 2000; Williams & Hall, 2009; Wright, Allen, & Devine, 1995). Following dinner, which was used as a recruitment incentive, the participants were read a consent form approved by the research team university’s Institutional Review Board. Participants indicated their willingness to participate by remaining in the room after being informed they were free to leave if they had decided not to participate. Recruited participants were living in a TLP in a large urban area that serves youth ages 17 to 22 years who have a history of chronic homelessness. This TLP requires residents without high school diplomas to either reenroll in high school or enroll in a program to obtain their General Educational Development (GED) certificate. Clients with high school diplomas or GEDs must either work or pursue further education. As a part of this research team’s socially just approach to conducting research, residents who participated in the study were offered the opportunity to receive advocacy services. In addition, requests from case managers to conduct pro bono evaluations for selected residents were honored with the residents’ consent.

For this particular study, three separate focus groups with a total of 18 youth were held at one TLP. The focus group participants (8 males and 10 females; M_age = 19.5 years; age range = 17-22) had been homeless for varying lengths of time (M_time = 2 years, 4 months; time range = 1 month-8 years) prior to entry into the program. The participants’ histories of educational stability also varied; one participant changed schools five times, whereas others never changed schools after becoming homeless. The four participants of high school age at the time of the study were attending traditional high schools, alternative high schools, or JobCorps. Six youth were participating in GED classes, and eight were participating either in college, technical school, or vocational school.

Critical Qualitative Inquiry

Due to the paucity of research on the educational experiences of homeless youth, a critical qualitative research approach was used to develop an understanding of the issues this population face attending school. A social justice approach lends itself to critical qualitative research by seeking to question larger systems of society and culture to raise awareness and empower those affected to create change (Merriam, 2009). As a qualitative form of inquiry, critical qualitative research explores the lived experiences of a marginalized group of people and the power dynamics inherent in their situations (Greene, 2007). This approach allows researchers to understand the concerns and issues of homeless youth for the purpose of suggesting improvements in educational services based on their experiences.

Focus Groups

One associate professor and four graduate students conducted the three focus groups. All research team members were trained in basic counseling skills and had prior experience facilitating group discussions. The focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured protocol and researchers worked in pairs as facilitators or discussion leaders. Focus groups were used because they are naturalistic, paint a portrait of the combined local perspectives, and reflect a mix of opinions from people who are part of a particular population or a community (Duncan & Marotz-Baden, 1999). In contrast to individual interviews, which may provoke defensiveness in post-adolescents, focus groups diffuse the sometimes intimidating nature of human subject research and the less-structured peer environment allows participants to feel more comfortable opening up (Darling, 1993; Hughes & DuMont, 1993). The focus group format also allows for multiple viewpoints to be explored (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008). Increasingly, focus groups are used for practical purposes such as evaluation, program planning, and funding (Goldenkoff, 2004; Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008; Patton, 1990; Race, Hotch, & Packer, 1994).

The resulting audio files were transcribed and coded for recurring themes using the consensual qualitative research (CQR) method (Hill,Thompson & Williams, 1997, Hill, et al., 2005). In accordance with CQR standards, pairs of researchers first read through all of the transcripts to get a sense of the overall meaning and began to identify broad domains. Next, they arrived at consensus judgments and used an auditor to verify the accuracy of the domains. Third, the researchers coded the data into thoughtfully agreed-upon core ideas. Then, the researchers compared data systematically across cases to reduce redundancy and extract commonalities through cross-analysis. Finally, the number of excerpts that fit into the emerging categories within each domain was tabulated, and simple frequencies were calculated using SPSS.

Results

The focus groups conducted with homeless youth yielded the following themes: disclosure issues, lack of awareness of McK-V rights, transportation issues, impact of staff, the negative effects of homelessness, and dropping out of school. These themes emerged as the youth explained the obstacles and supports they encountered while being homeless during high school.

Disclosure

The first theme that emerged was disclosure issues. The majority of the youth in the focus groups chose not to share their homeless status with school staff. As a result, they experienced many negative consequences due to their reluctance to self-disclose. School staff could not identify students in need of McK-V services (to which the students were entitled) due to the participants’ decisions to conceal their homeless status. In fact, many youth stated that they feared staff would not keep their living status confidential and valued protecting themselves from stigmatization by their peers over any advantage the McK-V Act potentially could provide them. Several youth had witnessed staff as well as students being judgmental of those who “didn’t keep themselves up” and therefore, the participants did not want to subject themselves to that stigma:

I rather wanted to keep it under wraps, because I go to school all the way out west. So, some kids don’t accept it and some kids do. Some kids like to make fun of you, because you’re homeless, so maybe I keep it under wraps.

Another youth expressed skepticism that the school would actually protect her privacy if she did disclose her status to them:

But at the same time I didn’t want nobody to know. I mean schools have that confidential rule that says they can’t tell your business, but they do regardless of the fact. I wish I had known but at the same time, I’m not sure I would have taken advantage of it [the law] because I didn’t want everybody in my business.

Youth who did disclose their homelessness were able to access services, apply for graduation funds, and obtain transportation. One youth reported that school staff noticed signs suggesting homelessness and helped her to access services:

Um, my teacher told me about it because she seen that I was missing a couple of days out of school, and she told that I could go to the office and sign up to get bus cards and stuff.

In addition, several youth explained how reaching out helped them access mental health services and housing support: “I asked somebody for help and they suggested me to my social worker and then she suggested me to this program.” The McK-V Act requires homeless students to disclose their homeless status to school staff to access their right to services. That so many participants were reluctant to disclose their status renders these services largely inaccessible to them.

Awareness of Rights

The second theme was lack of awareness of McK-V rights. The majority of participants were unaware of their McK-V rights and the services available at the time they were in high school. In fact, many of them stated that the first time they had heard about these rights was during the focus group. Several youth reported that there were adults at the school who helped them by giving them money, bus cards, and food when possible. However, these adults did not inform the youth about their rights or tell the school’s McK-V liaison that the student was homeless and in need of these overarching available services: “Well, my teacher she would give me bus cards anytime she could, and a couple of dollars anytime that she could.” One youth expressed the opinion that schools should be legally obligated to inform students of McK-V rights:

I feel like it should be a law that they have to tell you. That they have to tell every student that it’s the law. They should tell everybody, it should be a well-known thing. Because it’s bogus in the end I didn’t know.

The youth differed in their reflection on their disclosure choices in light of their knowledge or lack thereof concerning rights and services under McK-V. For example, one youth was glad that he had disclosed and advocated for himself:

My school they knew, I told them what my situation was. And they helped me out. That’s how I ended up here, that’s how I’m at [this program]. And I’m kind of glad that I told somebody, because if I had kept my mouth closed then maybe I wouldn’t be where I am today.

However, lack of information combined with fear of judgment seemed to make disclosure unfortunately relatively rare among participants, while they were in high school. One youth put it this way:

I didn’t want everybody to know what was going on with me. And I really kept to myself a lot when I was in school, so I don’t really know what I would have done about it [had I known about McK-V rights].

Transportation

The third theme pertained to transportation issues due to inaccessibility. As the majority of the participants did not disclose their homelessness to school staff, they were forced to provide transportation for themselves. Many cited transportation struggles as the major factor that hindered their ability to progress or even stay in school:

My issue was when I first became homeless, I had to basically provide the transportation for myself to get to and from school. I feel that if it were provided, there would be less I would have to worry about, I could focus on staying awake and trying to pass classes.

Speaking of becoming a dropout due to lack of transportation, one youth said,

I didn’t really choose to [drop out]. I didn’t have a way to get to school. I didn’t have the resources as far as transportation.

Many participants reiterated that lack of access to safe transportation to and from school was a major reason for their dropping out of school. One youth shared his fears for safety when he had a long walk to school and his frustration at the school’s lack of understanding for his situation:

She [the school liaison] would say, “yeah, I know what you are going through,” but [she] didn’t have to worry about making it to school without ending up in the hospital . . . At 8:30 in the morning trying to get to school . . . it was just get to school safe, not just get to school.

The Impact of Staff

The fourth theme centered on the impact of staff. Participants described how school staff either helped them to or hindered them from staying in school. Students who reported that they had accessed their McK-V rights mentioned working with a school counselor or a social worker to obtain needed services. Participants reported that teachers and staff were crucial for their continuing in school:

All my teachers really gave a positive influence to me about continuing school and all that because like they was always trying to stay after school to help anybody that needed help with either homework or school work that was behind on classes.

However, school staff can also have a negative impact on a homeless participant’s chances of remaining in school. One student eventually was expelled for frequent tardiness; the assistant principal punished and berated him even though he was traveling long distances to school:

Some of the problems that I had when I was struggling to focus on my work and I was getting far behind, the administration was like, “Why are you not doing this? Why are you not doing that?” They were pressuring me for not being on track, and they just made it hard.

Effects of Homelessness

In the fifth theme, youth described the effect that homelessness had on their lives outside of school. Participants in these focus groups reported experiencing the harsh realities of homelessness. Without reliable and supportive adults to provide for them, some of the youth spent many nights sleeping on the street, exposed to drugs and crime. Even basic hygiene became a problem without a place to shower or launder their clothing. One quote from this youth sums up the perspective shared by many participants that school is just another overwhelming burden in their lives:

So that’s when the problems began, because the more the rules were changed, that made it harder for somebody in my position who was always worrying about having clean clothes, getting back and forth to school, staying focused in school, and just worrying about that shame or embarrassment when somebody know that you homeless instead of getting the help that you need to stay in school.

Dropping Out

The final theme included information about what led these participants ultimately to drop out of school. Of the participants who reported homelessness during high school, few earned their diplomas within the allotted 4 years. However, after getting settled into a relatively stable living situation, many unaccompanied youth reported wanting to return to school. By the time they were ready to become students again, they faced obstacles that made returning to high school an unachievable option:

I’ve tried to go back to school, but I was so far behind in credits, that it would take me three or four years to get out. It would take me so long that I would be 21, 22 by the time I get out of high school.

I was in school 12 hours a day, 5 days a week because I was going to night school that didn’t get out until 7. I was trying to stay on track, but going through that every day was hard, so I had to drop night school and then I had to stop going to day school.

That many participants in this study wanted to finish high school on time but could not indicates that the systems of support in one major metropolitan school district are inadequate to help them remain in school.

Discussion

Other qualitative research studies (Aviles de Bradley, 2008; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Julianelle, 2007) suggest that the McK-V Act as it exists currently does not adequately meet the needs of unaccompanied youth. The results of this study provide firsthand accounts of the ways in which unaccompanied youth are impeded from achieving school stability, which interferes with their completing high school. This study also highlights how the gap between the intent and the enactment of the law contributes to social injustice for unaccompanied homeless youth.

In this study, focus group participants cited a lack of knowledge of their rights as unaccompanied homeless youth as the largest factor in not accessing the services provided under McK-V. Lacking information that one’s own rights even exist virtually assures that one will not access those rights, which perpetuates marginalization. Unlike IDEA, a comparable law with the McK-V Act in that both share the intention of school inclusion, McK-V requires potential recipients to identify and advocate for themselves. This is problematic for unaccompanied youth because unlike homeless parents (Wynne et al., 2014), youth participants tended not to disclose their homeless status to schools. Some participants only recognized in retrospect that McK-V benefits could have offset any perceived embarrassment that accompanies disclosure of homeless status. Other participants stated that they would not have risked the stigma of disclosure even if they had known about the McK-V services. Without parents or caregivers to advocate for them, unaccompanied youth are left making difficult decisions on their own. It is unjust and unethical to require this vulnerable population to take on the tremendous task of advocating for educational rights without adult support.

Unless the school culture fosters an environment of trust and respect, youth may never feel comfortable in disclosing their homeless status. Without knowledge of the law, even well-intentioned teachers can contribute to social injustice by inadvertently impeding homeless students’ access to rights. One way in which schools can ameliorate this issue is to actively identify students who are homeless. School districts can provide professional development training regarding the McK-V Act to teachers and other staff who have regular contact with students. Student service providers and teachers can look for warning signs that youth may be experiencing housing instability, such as excessive tardiness or absenteeism, deteriorating personal hygiene, hunger, and fatigue and assist them in accessing their McK-V rights and services. School districts could engage in districtwide screening and provide easy-to-read information about McK-V rights at registration to identify and educate homeless or potentially homeless students and families.

In addition, participants shared stories that highlighted how significantly school staff’s response affected their educational trajectory; some mentioned how special attention and support helped them through school, whereas others noted how insensitivity or indifference from school staff exacerbated their problems. Teachers and staff have the power and opportunity to be social justice advocates by supporting their students in need, especially those asking for help. The mentorship and encouragement that school staff can provide has the potential to greatly affect youths’ resolve to stay in school. Sensitive school staff and administrators can make the difference between students staying in school or dropping out, which may allow them to hold on to their only stable environment (Miller, 2009a). It is the legal and moral responsibility of school districts and their employees to learn about and meet the educational needs of homeless students because school districts have more power and agency than vulnerable homeless youth.

Participants noted that access to transportation was a major barrier to maintaining school stability. These difficulties with transportation highlight another gap between intent and enactment of the law. McK-V has a provision that allows students to stay in their school of origin or transfer to a school close to where they are currently residing. Many of the participants in this study chose to stay in their school of origin despite lengthy commutes. Unaware of school districts’ obligation to provide transportation to homeless students who do self-identify, many of the youth struggled with transportation issues on their own. Although McK-V does address some aspects pertaining to the maintenance of stability in schooling for homeless youth, it fails to take into account the effects of poorly defined transportation regulations on school performance and graduation rates for this population.

When compared with the experiences of homeless parents of school-age children, unaccompanied youth more often face the harsh realities of homelessness such as sleeping on the street, exposure to crime, and lack of access to daily hygiene necessities (Ensign & Bell, 2004; McManus & Thompson, 2008). These stressors are examples of the marked vulnerability of this population; recent research indicates that homeless youth experience the effects of homelessness described above more acutely than homeless families (Wynne, et al., 2014). Without knowing about their rights or whom to trust, unaccompanied youth are forced to take care of themselves. Clearly, experiencing the negative effects of homelessness adversely affects youths’ ability to maintain school attendance and academic performance. As school staff are often the adults with whom homeless youth have most consistent contact, they should be educated about housing and other resources available for this population under the McK-V Act and the US Department of Health and Human Services 2004.

As reported earlier, the majority of the participants in this study dropped out of high school for at least some length of time, indicating that dropping out of school may be a common response to the various problems that unaccompanied youth face. The decision to drop out resulted in negative consequences, such as loss of contact with adult role models and peers, exposure to harmful environments, as well as loss of credits that made it harder for the students to return to school once they obtained stable housing. Thus, this study revealed how vulnerable unaccompanied youth can be to obstacles that negatively affect their trajectory toward becoming independent adults.

As indicated in the literature, the lifelong impact of leaving high school without a diploma is detrimental to future opportunities, thus perpetuating a cycle of inequality and poverty (Bjerk, 2012; Liem, Dillon, & Gore, 2001; Oreopoulos, 2007; Sweeten, Bushway, & Paternoster, 2009). Therefore, facilitating the educational progress of homeless youth advances socially just outcomes by providing youth with access to better employment opportunities, increased potential for lifetime earnings, and housing stability (Card, 1999; Lleras-Muney, 2002; Lochner & Moretti, 2004). High drop-out rates among unaccompanied youth indicate that the McK-V Act unintentionally perpetuates a power imbalance by failing to adequately serve marginalized adolescents and leaving them as disadvantaged young adults. To mitigate the negative effects caused by the inadequate implementation of the McK-V Act for unaccompanied youth, professional educators should advocate for homeless youth in schools, dismantle barriers to homeless youths’ school attendance, and increase their opportunities to become successful in the future.

Fortunately, research also indicates that remaining in school has positive effects on homeless and highly mobile youth (Miller, 2009b). Therefore, school staff should be conscious of the role they play in keeping unaccompanied youth in school. Educational professionals can help alleviate barriers to school stability by developing structures within the school, so that homeless students would not be penalized for tardiness, would be granted after-school access to computers and other educational resources, and would be provided extra homework assistance. Participants reported difficulty accruing credits because of absences or not being able to complete assignments due to lack of school supplies or interference of other priorities. Therefore, homeless students may not have received all the credits they had hoped to earn while in high school, leaving them far behind their same-aged peers. Schools could develop credit recovery programs for homeless youth and work with them to find solutions for personal hygiene, tardiness, homework help, and school supplies.

Conclusion

Several main themes emerged from the focus group data. Participants were generally unaware of the services available under the McKinney–Vento Act. Students’ decisions whether or not to disclose their homeless status to school staff primarily hinged on their perception of how the stigma of homelessness could have affected them socially in high school. Furthermore, in a large metropolitan area, transportation to and from school is a major difficulty. Participants who very much wanted to graduate from high school faced many obstacles that put them at risk for dropping out.

These themes provide evidence of the power imbalance between housed students with parental support and unaccompanied youth. When compared with the homeless parents (Wynne et al., 2014), results indicate that homeless youth have less success at maintaining school stability than homeless children who have parents to advocate for them. As public institutions, schools have great power to develop rules and structures to which students are supposed to adhere. Without parental support or knowledge of legal rights, homeless youth are often not able to meet the standards of the school environment and are forced into failure. It seems that the system is failing to meet the needs of homeless students to such a degree that failing to graduate becomes the normative outcome for homeless students. The McK-V Act as it currently exists does not adequately address the needs of unaccompanied homeless youth, and therefore, it is sustaining the very problem it was enacted to solve and maintaining social injustice as a result.

Educational professionals are in a prime position to advocate for unaccompanied youth in schools as they work with both students and parents to collaborate with other staff and administrators. School districts can support the use of universal screeners to identify students in need of McK-V services and also disseminate strategies to teachers that will increase the educational opportunities for homeless youth. Finally, educational professionals are in an ideal position to help educate staff, students, and families about the definition of homelessness and the rights and services guaranteed by the McKinney–Vento Act.

Limitations

There are two major limitations to this study. This study is very small in scope examining the experiences of homeless youth in one large metropolitan area, and only those living in one TLP. The sample size is not large enough for any of the findings to generalize to the majority of homeless youth in urban TLPs, and may be even less applicable to all homeless youth, particularly those living in rural areas. The findings should be understood as a qualitative exploration for the purpose of understanding the perspectives and experiences of homeless youth in TLPs.

Another limitation of the research design is a lack of random sampling due to participants self-selecting into this study. The participants who volunteered to be in this study may have shared some characteristics of outgoingness or a desire to talk about themselves that other TLP residents may not have had. The researchers conducted the focus groups at different times throughout a year-long period and explained the McK-V rights to all residents before hosting focus groups, so it is likely that those who volunteered to participate in the study did so because they experienced difficulties during high school and wanted to share their stories.

Future Directions for Research

This study provides rich descriptions of the ways in which the McK-V Act often fails to adequately meet the needs of unaccompanied homeless students living in a large urban area. Future studies could utilize a short semi-structured interview based upon the focus group findings to discover similarities or differences among homeless youth in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the country. As the youth in this study were all African American, heterosexual, and lived in one TLP, future studies could seek out Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) youth, youth living on the street or in temporary shelters, and youth from different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

In addition, researchers should survey school administrators and support personnel about their knowledge of the legally required McK-V services that their school districts provide and any extra services beyond McK-V’s basic requirements that they provide to homeless students. While research has been conducted about the experiences of homeless people worldwide (Tipple, & Speak, 2009; Toro, 2007), more research is needed that focuses on homeless youth from a global perspective in particular. For example, researchers in Australia have been pursuing solutions to serving homeless youth by looking at social and educational services for at-risk youth (Crane & Livock, 2012). Researchers may continue to find recommendations for policy change and best practice by reviewing the treatment of homeless, unaccompanied youth internationally and their experiences in school.

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.

Author Biographies

Ashley Etzel Ausikaitis, PhD, completed her doctorate in School Psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. She is currently a Postdoctoral Psychology Felllow at the Westchester Institute of Human Development in Valhalla, NY.

Martha Ellen Wynne, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Loyola University of Chicago’s School Psychology Program, where she leads the Home School Community Research team.

Schevita Persaud, MEd, is a School Psychology doctoral student at Loyola University of Chicago.

Rachel Pitt, MEd/EdS. is a school psychologist at Oak Park River Forest High School in Illinois.

Aaron Hosek, MEd/EdS, is a school psychologist at Chicago Public Schools and is an Ed.D. candidate at Loyola University of Chicago.

Kayse Reker, MEd is a School Psychology doctoral student at Loyola University of Chicago.

Carina Turner, MEd/EdS, is a school psychologist at Columbus City Schools and a peer advocate leader at Ohio University Women’s Center.

Sandy Flores, MEd, is a School Psychology doctoral student at Loyola University of Chicago.

Sofia Flores, MEd/EdS is a doctoral student at Loyola University of Chicago. She is also a school psychologist at Hawthorne Early Childhood in Wheeling, IL.

References

Abrams

L. S.

(2010). Sampling “hard to reach” populations in qualitative research: The case of incarcerated youth. Qualitative Social Work, 9, 536-550.

Anooshian

L. J.

(2005). Violence and aggression in the lives of homeless children. Journal of Family Violence, 60, 373-387. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-7799-3

Aviles de Bradley

(2008). Educational rights of homeless children and youth. American Educational History Journal, 35(2), 261-277.

Biggar

(2001). Homeless children and education: An evaluation of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 941-969.

Bjerk

(2012). Re-examining the impact of dropping out on criminal and labor outcomes in early adulthood. Economics of Education Review, 31, 110-122.

Campolieti

Fang

Gunderson

(2009). Labour market outcomes and skill acquisition of high-school dropouts. Journal of Labor Research, 31, 39-52.

Card

(1999). The causal effect of education on earnings. In Ashenfelter

Card

(Eds.), Handbook of labor economics, (Vol., 3, pp. 1801-1863). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Cobb-Clark

Gørgens

(2014). Parents’ economic support of young-adult children: Do socioeconomic circumstances matter? Journal of Population Economics, 27, 447-471.

Cochran

B. N.

Stewart

A. J.

Ginzler

J. A.

Cauce

A. M.

(2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 773-777.

10.

Crane

Livock

(2012). Joined-up practice: Five areas of exemplary practice for social workers and educators to re-engage homeless youth. Youth Studies Australia, 31(2), 44-52.

11.

Cutuli

J. J.

Desjardins

C. D.

Herbers

J. E.

Long

J. D.

Heistad

Chan

C. K.

Masten

A. S.

(2013). Academic achievement trajectories of homeless and highly mobile students: Resilience in the context of chronic and acute risk. Child Development, 84(3), 841-857.

12.

Darling

(1993). Designing health promotion approached to high risk adolescents through formative research with youth and parents. Public Health Reports, 108(Suppl. 1), 68-77.

13.

Denzin

N. K.

(2009). Critical pedagogy and democratic life or a radical democratic pedagogy. Cultural Studies↔Critical Methodologies, 9, 379-397.

14.

Duncan

S. F.

Marotz-Baden

(1999). Using focus groups to identify rural participant needs in balancing work and family education. Journal of Extension, 37(1). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/rb1.php

15.

Ensign

Bell

(2004). Illness experiences of homeless youth. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1239-1254.

16.

Fantuzzo

Perlman

(2007). The unique impact of out-of-home placement and the mediating effects of child maltreatment and homelessness on early school success. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(7), 941-960.

17.

Gasper

DeLuca

Estacion

(2012). Switching schools: Revisiting the relationship between school mobility and high school dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 487-519.

18.

Goldenkoff

(2004). Using focus groups. In Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

Newcomer

K. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 340-362). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Greene

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

20.

Grossman

Kaestner

(1997). Effects of education on health. In Berhman

Stacey

(Eds.), The social benefits of education (pp. 69-123). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

21.

Hagan

McCarthy

(1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517-572.

23.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196.

24.

Hughes

DuMont

(1993). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 775-806.

25.

Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Data collection methods for program evaluation: Focus groups (Healthy Youth Evaluation). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief13.pdf.

26.

Hyman

Aubry

Klodawsky

(2011). Resilient educational outcomes: Participation in school by youth with histories of homelessness. Youth & Society, 43, 253-273.

27.

Julianelle

P. F.

(2007). The educational success of homeless youth in California: Challenges and solutions. Sacramento: California Research Bureau.

28.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Liem

J. H.

Dillon

Gore

(2001, August). Mental health consequences associated with dropping out of high school. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

30.

Lleras-Muney

(2002). The relationship between education and adult mortality in the United States. The Review of Economic Studies, 72, 189-221.

31.

Lochner

Moretti

(2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review, 94, 155-189.

32.

Martins

D. C.

(2008). Experiences of homeless people in the health care delivery system: A descriptive phenomenological study. Public Health Nursing, 25, 420-430.

33.

McManus

H. H.

Thompson

S. J.

(2008). Trauma among unaccompanied homeless youth: The integration of street culture into a model of intervention. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 92-109.

34.

Merriam

S.B.

(2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Miller

P. M.

(2009a). Boundary spanning in homeless children’s education: Notes from an emergent faculty role in Pittsburgh. Education Administration Quarterly, 45, 616-630.

36.

Miller

P. M.

(2009b). Leadership practice in service of homeless students: An examination of community perceptions. Urban Review, 41, 222-250.

37.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2012). An emerging framework for ending unaccompanied youth homelessness. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/an-emerging-framework-for-ending-unaccompanied-youth-homelessness.

38.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf

39.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

40.

Nyamathi

A. M.

Leake

Gelberg

(2000). Sheltered versus non-sheltered homeless women. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 565-572.

41.

Obradović

(2010). Effortful control and adaptive functioning of homeless children: Variable-focused and person-focused analyses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 109-117.

42.

Oreopoulos

(2007). Would more compulsory schooling help disadvantaged youth? evidence from recent changes to school-leaving laws. In The Problems of Disadvantaged Youth: An Economic Perspective (pp. 85-112). University of Chicago Press.

43.

Paradise

Cauce

A. M.

(2002). Home street home: The interpersonal dimensions of adolescent homelessness. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 223-238.

44.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

45.

Race

K. E.

Hotch

D. F.

Packer

(1994). Rehabilitation program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 18, 730-740.

46.

Rescorla

Parker

Stolley

(1991). Ability, achievement, and adjustment in homeless children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 210-220.

47.

Shriberg

Fenning

(Eds.). (2009). School consultants as agents of social justice: Implications for practice [Special issue]. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 1-7.

48.

Sweeten

Bushway

Paternoster

(2009). Does dropping out of school mean dropping into delinquency? Criminology, 47, 47-91.

49.

Tipple

Speak

(2009). The hidden millions: homelessness in developing countries. New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Toro

P. A.

(2007). Toward an international understanding of homelessness. Journal of Social Issues, 63(3), 461-481.).

51.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). The Runaway and homeless youth act (Title III of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974), as amended by Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act (PL 108–96)(42 USC 5701). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

52.

Williams

J. K.

Hall

J. A.

(2009). Stress and traumatic stress: How do past events influence current traumatic stress among mothers experiencing homelessness? Social Work Research, 33, 199-207.

53.

Wright

J. D.

Allen

T. L.

Devine

J. A.

(1995). Tracking non-traditional populations longitudinal studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 267-277.

54.

Wynne

M. E.

Flores

Desai

P. S.

Persaud

Reker

Pitt

R.M.

. . . Ausikaitis

A. E.

(2014). Educational opportunity: Parent and youth perceptions of major provisions of the McKinney-Vento Act. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 23(1), 1-18.