Districts' and schools' role in identifying and providing services for homeless students: Nested ecological case studies in school districts with high- and low-socioeconomic status

Abstract

Even though homeless students are nested in schools and districts with different socioeconomic status (SES) contexts, little is known about the role of schools and districts for homeless students in these differing contexts. This comparative case study explored the identification, service provision, and school experience of homeless students in high- and low-SES districts. Mixed-methods case study methodology was used to compare two school districts and their four elementary and middle schools in California. The districts differed based on their SES: low to medium versus high. Findings show that despite differences in the SES context, both districts were underidentifying homeless students. Hence, both districts were underserving and lacking awareness of homeless students that were not identified. However, the low-SES district had far greater poverty awareness and, subsequently, an existing organizational structure than the high-SES district to support identified homeless students. Poverty awareness and districts' organizational structure are important contextual factors to consider in designing local and tailored interventions and services for homeless students.

1 ∣. INTRODUCTION

Student homelessness is increasingly being recognized as a national problem, and recent reports have indicated that about 1.3 million homeless students attend public schools across the country (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Homeless students are one of the most educationally marginalized groups in the United States. They encounter various challenges and risks, including housing instability (Hallett et al., 2015), frequent school transition, tardiness, and absenteeism (Hinrichsen & Min, 2012), mental health issues (Moore et al., 2018), substance use (Moore et al., 2019a), school victimization (Moore et al., 2019b), low academic achievement, and low graduation rates (Masten et al., 2015; S. Stone & Uretsky, 2016).

Homeless students are an understudied and underserved population (Canfield et al., 2017; National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Examining the existing literature on student homelessness through an ecological framework suggests that studies have focused on multiple separate ecological layers (students, schools, districts, communities, policy implementation) without examining corresponding interactions between those variables (Miller & Bourgeois, 2013; Pavlakis, 2018). Most of the main outcomes investigated with homeless students have focused largely on academic achievement (S. Stone & Uretsky, 2016; Tobin, 2016).

Research has shown that homeless high school students are at risk of dropping out of school (Masten et al., 2015), use substances off and on school grounds (Moore et al., 2019a), have problems with attendance and truancy (Hinrichsen & Min, 2012), have mental health problems, and experience school victimization (Moore et al., 2018, 2019b). Research that focused on the school level has shown that a positive school climate may be a protective factor for homeless students regarding school victimization and mental health (Moore et al., 2020).

1.1 ∣. Homelessness spectrum: Mckinney–Vento Act's student homelessness definition

Student homelessness received recognition at the national policy level 30 years ago with the passage of the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, (MVA, 1987), which was amended in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The MVA, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Education, provides an extensive definition of what constitutes homelessness, as compared to other offices' definitions, and includes several subgroups that are not always recognized by other definitions. Specifically, the definition includes students who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and those who are doubled up; that is, students who share housing with relatives or friends due to economic difficulties. The categories of doubling up and sharing a house with relatives or friends are not often included in other federal definitions of homelessness but are present in the MVA. It is often a source of confusion or misunderstanding when districts count homeless students (Hallett et al., 2015). This inclusive definition allows the provision of support to multiple subgroups of homeless students, which could prove to be beneficial in preventing the worsening of their homelessness status (i.e., from doubled up to living on the street), and is based on a decision made by policymakers to address the adverse educational consequences of high mobility and housing instability (Hallett et al., 2015). The Act provides funding to states and school districts to address the educational needs of students who meet the Act's definition of homelessness, including immediate enrollment, attendance, and provision of equal opportunities for education.

1.2 ∣. Ecological understanding of policy and student homelessness

State-level resources are available for homeless students, yet the amount of empirical data and studies documenting or guiding services is limited. In California, the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a unique policy that “requires democratic involvement in district decision-making. Districts must involve parents, students, stakeholders, and the broader community in developing its Local Control Accountability Plan” (Marsh & Hall, 2018, p. 244). Since 2015, homeless students must be included in school districts' LCAPs to show how their needs are being met. The formula highlights the decentralization of funding, meaning that the funding is based on the districts' documented needs, and the distribution of funds depends on various student factors. This policy stresses the role of schools and the surrounding community in the plan to support students experiencing homelessness, and it specifies that schools and districts are accountable for providing resources. Hence, if districts are not aware of homeless students and thus underidentify homeless students, they do not receive these state and federal resources.

Studies that focused on the district level tended to examine the implementation of the MVA (Cunningham, 2014; Wilkins et al., 2016). Overall, findings showed that state and federal policy incentives can be an important strategy for districts to advance their homelessness services, but that to advance equal opportunities for homeless students, more comprehensive adjustments in local policies, including those not related to homelessness, should be made (Hallett et al., 2015). Although the MVA specifically addresses the importance of a district-level homeless liaison, findings demonstrate significant differences in perceived implementation relating to collaboration with teachers and school administrators; homeless liaison job titles and roles; school receipt of federal funding for the education of homeless students; and a general understanding of the number of homeless students in schools, the needs of those students, and staff responsibilities related to those students (Wilkins et al., 2016). Finally, despite the existence of MVA, a lack of funding at both state and district levels is an additional barrier to implementation (Miller, 2015).

1.3 ∣. School-centric ecological theory for understanding student homelessness

Few studies and conceptual models have examined the role of the community and the complex ecological layers that affect a school's ability to serve students experiencing homelessness. In a study that examined school readiness to serve homeless and high-mobility students while considering community-level issues and geographic dispersion of homeless students, Miller and Bourgeois (2013) concluded that conceptual frameworks of homeless students should include the intersections of school, community, and policy contexts.

Astor and Benbenishty (2019) suggested that schools' outside contexts, such as the hierarchical organizational structure (district, country, state), student characteristics, community context, and the larger society, all influence the school and internal policies, behaviors, and climate. Astor and Benbenishty (2019) argued that the internal context of the school, such as organization and climate, can moderate or mediate the exterior context's influence on the school.

Using this ecological model, districts can play a vital role as an outside context, because they carry the responsibility for funding distribution, catering to the requirements of multiple stakeholders, and specifically regarding homeless students, the mandate to provide services and ensure equal opportunity for education. Moreover, the local community and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), along with a potential lack of equal opportunities for education and employment, are crucial factors that contribute to the ability of schools and districts to support homeless students.

Homeless students are embedded in and affected by multiple policy layers. The school layer, for example, includes families of homeless students, students, a school homeless liaison, teachers, principals, administrators, and so forth. The district layer includes district administrators, a district homeless liaison, district nurses, district social workers, community stakeholders, and more. The interactions within and between each layer, in addition to larger contextual factors such as SES, may have an impact on awareness of and services for homeless students.

One important conceptual implication of Astor and Benbenishty's (2019) ecological model is that even though homelessness has an implicit assumption of poverty (Mohan & Shields, 2014), the role of the SES context in which the student, school, and district are embedded may not be the same across all ecological layers and could be an important factor in how a school approaches homelessness in its student population. Apart from a few studies that centered on student homelessness in suburban areas (Pavlakis, 2018), existing research on homeless students has tended to focus on low-SES districts or schools (e.g., Miller, 2015), despite the presence of homeless students in schools of varying SES contexts (Pavlakis, 2018, 2021).

Comparison studies are needed to examine similarities or differences between districts that serve homeless students in different SES contexts. Schools in districts may have different local SES contexts than the overall district in which they are nested.

Therefore, based on these gaps in the literature and an empirical examination of how district and regional contexts may influence school decisions and practices for homeless students, this study investigated the manner in which the SES of districts and schools affect the role that schools and districts play in supporting homeless students, by examining the nested social and organizational layers (districts and schools) in which homeless students are embedded. The study relied on data collected in two Southern California school districts that shared multiple characteristics but differed mainly based on their district- and school-level community SES. Using a case study methodology, this study compared two districts—one with high SES and another with low–medium SES—in addressing the needs of homeless students.

2 ∣. METHOD

This 8-month (2017–2018) comparative case study relied on 27 interviews, 98 survey responses, 102 h of observations and participant observations, and document and website analysis to explore differences and similarities between schools and districts and the importance of their SES context in the school experience of elementary and middle school homeless students from multiple perspectives. The institutional review board of the first author's institution approved this study.

This study compared districts with low–medium or high SES. In each district, two schools with the most identified or assumed homeless students were selected to participate. We hypothesized that differences between the districts would occur in the following areas: (a) awareness of homeless students, (b) service delivery to homeless students, and (c) the school experience of homeless students.

Specifically, several contradicting theoretical possibilities based on the literature were examined in this study. These possible conceptual theories include the assumption that, in comparison with a low–medium-SES district, a high-SES district that has more available resources would have increased awareness of, provide improved services to, and support a more positive school experience for homeless students. On the other hand, a high-SES district might do worse than a low–medium-SES district in identifying, being aware of, and supporting homeless students due to the perceived rarity of homeless students in the community and district. This theoretical possibility is predicated on the assumption that because fewer students in the district experience poverty, the district would not be organized around these issues, would lack awareness of homeless students, and would generally lack support for students in poverty, including homeless students.

2.1 ∣. Research design, sampling, and procedures

A mixed-methods, exploratory, embedded, multiple-case study design was selected (Yin, 2013). The boundaries of the cases were defined as the district, staff, teachers, and students. The study included multiple sources of evidence that were triangulated constantly.

Sites and participants for the study were purposively selected at the district and school levels. First, two districts, one with high SES and one with low–medium SES, that expressed interest in understanding student homelessness in their district were selected to participate. In each district, the district's superintendent and homeless liaison identified two schools with the highest number of assumed or identified homeless students to participate in the study. The homeless liaisons in both districts acknowledged that they were most likely underidentifying homeless students through the formal process and that the schools that were selected were most likely to have more homeless students than identified. In the process of school selection, we emphasized K-8 schools due to the limited research on the topic. In both districts, one school was in a more affluent neighborhood context, whereas the other was in a lower-SES context, compared to the rest of the district. This provided an opportunity to further explore the differences in embedded SES context. In the high-SES district, two elementary schools participated. In the low–medium-SES district, an elementary and a middle school participated. Access to the schools and their staff, students, and documents was facilitated through the authors' work with the districts.

This study was guided by the research goal of understanding the role of schools for homeless students and their school experiences through multiple perspectives while comparing two districts in Southern California with different SES contexts. The two selected districts were comparable based on their location, number of schools, number of students, and number of identified homeless students. Table 1 shows that despite the districts' similarities, they differed in SES, as demonstrated by the area's median income, number of Title I schools in each district, and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) per district. The selected schools in both districts were Title I schools and were identified by the district's homeless liaisons as the elementary and middle schools with the highest population of homeless students. The schools in the low–medium-SES district demonstrated similar FRL percentages compared to the district. However, they varied in their school levels (Middle 1: Grades 6–8; Elementary 1: K-5) and the number of students. In the high-SES district, the selected schools (Elementary School 2 and Elementary School 3: K-5) had lower SES (based on FRL percentage) compared to the SES of their district. The table also describes the number of students who were officially identified as eligible for homelessness services.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of case study districts and schools and identified and estimated

	Low–medium SES district				High SES district
Section 1: Characteristics
Area median household income	$58,949a				$83,840a
Students	21,024				29,917
Schools	25				30
Free and reduced-price lunch	58.1%, n = 12,222				23.4%, n = 6997
Title 1 schools	25				3
Identified homeless students (district)	87				85
School	MS 1		ES 1		ES 2	ES 3
Students	1,467		661		630	790
Free and reduced-price lunch	728, 49.6%		341, 51.6%		429, 68.1%	267, 33.8%
English learners	164, 11.2%		97, 14.7%		199, 31%	89, 11.3%
Formally identified homeless students (school)	8		13		3	1
Section 2: Survey responses (teachers = 98)	MS 1		ES 1		ES 2	ES 3
Formally identified homeless students (district)	87				85
Formally identified homeless students (school)	8		13		3	1
Teachers	30		20		35	13
Section 3: Overall teachers' reports on housing situation of students in their classroom (teachers = 98)
Number of students in classroom	1–5	6–10	11–15	16–20	More than 20
Doubled up	55	7	18	2	3
Shelter, hotel, or motel	33	0	0	0	1
Street, car, or campground	9	1	0	0	0

^aData from 2016 U.S. census.

Abbreviations: ES, elementary school (K-5); MS, middle school (Grades 6–8); SES, socioeconomic status.

2.2 ∣. Data collection phases

Table 2 represents the multiple data sources used in this study. This study relied on several triangulated sources of qualitative and quantitative data, including interviews, observations, participant observations, surveys, and document evidence. The study consisted of four phases of data collection. Both inductive and deductive assumptions are applied in mixed-methods research, which leads to the results being more robust (Kitchenham, 2010; Yin, 2013).

TABLE 2.

Data sources

Qualitative		Low–Medium SES district		High SES district
		MS 1	ES 1	ES 2	ES 3
Interviews	Semistructured interviews focused on school experience and role of school among homeless students and perspectives on services implementation were conducted. Interview duration varied between 20 min and 1.5 h.	District level: homeless liaison		District level: homeless liaison, district social worker, director of special programs, family resources personnel member
		Principal, assistant principal, attendance clerk (homeless liaison), school attendance review board, health clerk, school counselor, registration official	Principal, attendance clerk, health clerk (homeless liaison), teacher, teacher	Principal, assistant principal, attendance clerk, teacher, teacher	Principal, assistant principal, attendance clerk
Observations and participant observations	Both types of observations were conducted.	Meetings with district officials, school staff meetings, registration process observations, health clerk office observations		Meetings with district officials, school staff meetings, city meeting regarding homelessness, registration process observations, health clerk office observations
Qualitative survey responses	The survey focused on homelessness in the district, whereas qualitative questions addressed teachers' input regarding perspectives on the experiences and needs of homeless students and the district and school's needs and strengths.	30 teachers and staff members	20 teachers	35 teachers	13 teachers
Documentary evidence	Multiple sources, including district and school officials, official district website, and newspaper articles were included.	Registration forms, district and school demographics, MVA documentation, LCAP, academic achievement, attendance documents, physical artifacts		Registration forms, district and school demographics, MVA documentation, LCAP, academic achievement, attendance documents, physical artifacts
Quantitative surveys	The survey focused on homelessness in the district, whereas quantitative questions addressed issues of awareness, challenges, and strengths of the school and district.	30 teachers and staff members	20 teachers	35 teachers	13 teachers

Abbreviations: ES, elementary school (K–5); LCAP, Local Control and Accountability Plan; MS, middle school (Grades 6–8); SES, socioeconomic status.

2.2.1 ∣. Phase 1: Collection of quantitative and secondary data

Data collection involved data on identified homeless students, including enrollment and attendance, for one school year, documented services provided to homeless students (transportation, school supplies, etc.), academic achievement, behavioral records, SES standing of the school's population, race and ethnicity of students, and living situation of students. It included meetings with the district homeless liaisons, facilitation of connections with the schools, school visits and observations, and initial interviews with district-level administrators, primarily the districts' homeless liaisons. Additionally, an administrative survey was distributed by both districts among teachers to gain information about domains related to the LCAP. Specifically, these survey data were used to better understand the awareness of homeless students and their needs. The survey included several sections. First, teachers were asked about students in their classroom and their different housing situations based on the categories specified in the MVA. For example, teachers were asked to report the number of students in their class who were living with a relative or friend due to economic hardship; in a hotel, motel, shelter, or on the street; and in a car or campground. Then, they were asked whether they considered each category as homelessness. In the following section, after they reported the numbers of their students in the different categories, the MVA definition was presented to participants as part of the survey and they were asked about their awareness of the MVA definition; the district and school homeless liaisons also completed this section. The next section was dedicated to items regarding the school experience of homeless students (the different school-based experiences are detailed in Table 3). Further, the survey included questions about challenges and school-based support for homeless students. The survey was sent to all teachers in the schools participating in this study.

TABLE 3.

Distribution of teacher responses regarding awareness of the definition of homelessness

	Low–middle SES district		High SES district
	MS 1	ES 1	ES 2	ES 3
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Teachers	30	20	35	13
Doubled up
Yes	4 (15.4)	1 (5.6)	8 (22.9)	0 (0.0)
No	10 (38.5)	10 (55.6)	9 (25.7)	4 (44.4)
Not sure	12 (46.2)	7 (38.9)	18 (51.4)	5 (46.6)
Hotel, motel, or shelter
Yes	12 (57.1)	6 (37.5)	19 (54.3)	1 (100.0)
No	2 (9.5)	2 (12.5)	1 (2.9)	0 (0.0)
Not sure	7 (33.3)	8 (50.0)	9 (25.7)	0 (0.0)
Street, car, or campground
Yes	18 (81.8)	10 (76.9)	NA	NA
No	1 (4.5)	1 (7.7)	NA	NA
Not sure	3 (13.6)	2 (15.4)	NA	NA
Responses of teachers and staff members regarding school experience of homeless students
Teachers	30	20	35	13
Bullying
Never	0 (0.0)	2 (10.5)	1 (2.9)	0 (0.0)
Seldom or half of the time	11 (27.9)	8 (42.1)	25 (71.4)	8 (61.1)
Most of the time or always	6 (20.7)	1 (5.3)	2 (5.7)	0 (0.0)
Don't know	12 (41.4)	8 (42.1)	7 (20.0)	5 (38.5)
Isolation
Never	0 (0.0)	1 (5.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Seldom or half of the time	5 (17.2)	9 (45.5)	17 (48.5)	9 (69.3)
Most of the time or always	13 (44.8)	4 (21.1)	10 (28.6)	1 (7.7)
Don't know	11 (37.9)	5 (26.3)	8 (22.9)	3 (23.1)
Socioemotional difficulties
Never	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Seldom or half of the time	3 (10.3)	11 (57.9)	12 (34.3)	5 (38.5)
Most of the time or always	19 (65.5)	6 (31.6)	21 (60)	5 (38.5)
Don't know	7 (24.1)	2 (10.5)	2 (5.7)	3 (23.1)
Violence and outbursts
Never	0 (0.0)	1 (5.3)	1 (2.9)	1 (7.7)
Seldom or half of the time	8 (27.6)	12 (63.3)	20 (57.3)	5 (38.5)
Most of the time or always	9 (31)	2 (10.5)	7 (20)	3 (23.1)
Don't know	12 (41.4)	4 (21.1)	7 (20.0)	4 (30.8)
Academic challenges
Never	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Seldom or half of the time	6 (10.7)	10 (52.6)	9 (25.7)	7 (53.9)
Most of the time or always	18 (62.1)	7 (36.9)	19 (68.6)	4 (30.8)
Don't know	5 (17.2)	2 (10.5)	2 (5.7)	2 (15.4)

Abbreviations: ES, elementary school (K–5); MS, middle school (Grades 6–8); SES, socioeconomic status.

2.2.2 ∣. Phase 2: District-level and administrative interviews based on the data

The second phase consisted of interviews at the district and school administration levels following the initial analysis of the survey responses. Based on the survey responses and initial interviews, the interview protocol was altered to include additional questions for the third phase, which included interviews with school staff members.

2.2.3 ∣. Phase 3: Second round of interviews with teachers and district-level service providers

This stage consisted of semistructured interviews. All teachers and staff members who showed interest in participating in an interview were invited to participate. All interviews took place at the school site. Recruitment was done via two ways: (a) the survey included an option to provide an email address if participants were interested in participating in an interview; (b) principals and staff members suggested school personnel members who would be relevant.

2.2.4 ∣. Phase 4: Triangulation of data with district- and school-level administrators

This stage occurred once all interviews and surveys were completed and after the initial data had been analyzed and themes emerged. District-level meetings with homeless liaisons, leading staff members, and deputy superintendents were conducted to present the initial findings. Information discovered during these sessions became part of the final analysis.

Anonymity was granted to all participants. All transcripts, notes, and audiotapes were stored in a locked cabinet and the names of schools and participants were disguised. To protect anonymity, participants' quotations were classified at the district or school level, rather than by their role in the school, except for teachers. Consent was obtained from participants.

2.3 ∣. Data analysis

To maintain methodological rigor and analytic defensibility, multiple strategies for rigor were used (Padgett, 2012). These strategies included multiple data sources for construct validity, triangulation with different data sources and among data sources, and code–recode strategies. These strategies are central to qualitative work and case studies (Yin, 2013).

2.3.1 ∣. Quantitative data

The data were analyzed with IBM SPSS 21. Overall, 98 teachers responded to the survey of 147 teachers who were eligible to participate, and the distribution of participants based on schools appears in Table 3. All elementary schools distributed the surveys only among teachers, whereas the middle school distributed the survey among all staff members who teach. Cross-tabulation analysis was used to determine the rates of relevant outcomes.

2.3.2 ∣. Qualitative data

Interview data were initially transcribed into a Word document and transferred into NVivo. A qualitative content analysis was conducted. Additionally, observation notes and qualitative responses from the surveys were transferred to Word documents. Documentary evidence was analyzed via document analysis, which incorporated coding content into themes, similar to the interviews and observations. For the most part, inductive coding techniques were used to derive codes from the data. Although a database of codes was not created before analysis, previous literature and the initial stages of the study allowed for a conceptualization of possible themes, which is appropriate for this study given its exploratory nature and explanatory elements. Two authors were responsible for data coding, using the interview manual as a guideline for the analysis to prevent overly exhaustive or rigid coding. Four interviews and four qualitative responses were coded by each author, and a codebook was developed. An interrater agreement rate of 92% was documented. Furthermore, the codebook was refined after coding two additional interviews. Later in the analysis, these codes were displayed in district meetings to group potential themes and advance the analysis to a point at which themes became clearer.

3 ∣. FINDINGS

Findings from the surveys and analysis of the observations and interviews yielded six themes: (a) identification, definition, and awareness of homeless students; (b) the school experience of homeless students; (c) intersection between homelessness and immigration; (d) attitudes toward poverty, housing instability, and homelessness; district organizational structure and demographics as forces that affect the role of school for homeless students; and (f) supporting homeless students: from individual initiatives to school-level support. Contrary to expectations, the districts did not differ when it came to challenges with identification, awareness, and school experience of homeless students, despite differences in their SES context. However, service delivery and efforts to support homeless students on an organizational level did differ based on the schools' and districts' SES context. These findings partially confirm the overarching hypothesis that districts would differ based on their SES context.

3.1 ∣. Theme 1: Identification, definition, and awareness of homeless students

The challenge of identifying homeless students is a theme that ran through multiple data sources in both districts and across all schools. The findings reveal a complex picture indicating that the underidentification of homeless students is related to multiple contexts. In comparing the two districts and the schools nested in them, this study showed that two domains are related to the identification and awareness of homeless students: (a) awareness of the definition of homelessness and homeless students in the school and (b) the process of identification through registration.

3.1.1 ∣. Awareness of homelessness definition and homeless students in school

Gaps existed between the districts' number of identified homeless students and estimates that were revealed in interviews and surveys (Table 1). Throughout the interviews, only the district homeless liaisons knew the exact number of homeless students. Other participants, including principals, teachers, health clerks, and attendance clerks, could not report the exact number. In the survey, teachers were asked to estimate how many students in their class met one of the criteria of the MVA definition of homelessness, based on their knowledge of their living situation and before introducing the MVA homelessness definition. For example, teachers were asked, “To your knowledge, how many students living in a shelter/hotel/motel do you have in your class?” The response options included categories with a range of numbers: none, 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and so forth, and teachers were asked to mark the number that represents their classroom (Table 1).

The results show that both districts and all schools were underidentifying their homeless students. The overall response rate to our survey was 66.7%. The findings indicated that the teacher identification of student living conditions (that fit the MVA definition of homelessness) in their classrooms ranged from 3 to 95 times higher than the district's formal identification of the number of homeless students under the MVA. Identification of homeless students has been consistently singled out as a major challenge for districts. The survey findings demonstrate the importance of teachers' knowledge due to their familiarity and ongoing interaction with their students, which could be central to the process of identification. Regarding school-level comparisons, a correlation emerged between the percentage of students eligible for FRL and the estimated number of homeless students. A higher percentage of FRL-eligible students was related to a higher estimated number of homeless students. Another finding that emerged from both the quantitative (Table 3) and qualitative data is the lack of awareness of the definition of homelessness, specifically the doubled-up category.

3.1.2 ∣. Identification through registration

Although both districts relied mainly on the registration process to identify homeless students, the level at which the students were identified differed between the districts based on their structural organization. In the low–middle-SES district, homeless students were identified at the school level when the registration process occurred, and the front office personnel was tasked with registration and on the front line of identifying and engaging with homeless students. In the high-SES district, this identification occurred at the district level, where the district personnel is the front line of engaging with homeless students. In either case, principals and teachers were generally left unaware. Despite this difference, the process of identification was described similarly across districts and schools. Students were identified mainly during the registration process when they or their families were asked to provide proof of residence. When families struggled to provide this evidence, it was a sign that they might be experiencing housing instability. A district-level participant from the child welfare and attendance office in the high-SES district described this issue:

When it [registration process] becomes what appears to be overwhelming to them [families], that's when I usually step in and say, “What's really going on?” and then ask some questions. My go-to question is always, “If you were not living where you are living right now, where would you be?” And if the answer is “on the street,” then they are categorized as students experiencing homelessness.

According to a review of registration forms (online and in person), neither district had a specific homelessness question. In both districts, multiple participants mentioned that students and their families might suggest that they live at a different address to attend a specific school. This was presented as another challenge to identifying homeless students, especially those who are doubled up because they do not have a category of their own that specifically addressed the reason for doubling up.

Twenty-one participants mentioned that in both districts and across all schools, homeless students are usually identified during the registration process and that once students are registered, there is not necessarily an interaction point that requires them to disclose their housing situation. Therefore, in addition to the challenges demonstrated in the identification process, students may also become homeless throughout the school year, which means that the responsibility for identification rests mainly at the school site, including staff members who are usually not involved in identification during the registration process.

3.2 ∣. Theme 2: School experience of homeless students

The findings suggest that homeless students' school experience was similar across all schools and districts, regardless of the school- or district-level SES. Findings from the survey (Table 3) indicate two meaningful trends across all schools and districts. First, many teachers and staff members stated that they have no knowledge regarding different school risk behaviors when it comes to homeless students. Second, teachers and staff members who did report on school risk behaviors among homeless students indicated that they are at high risk of experiencing adverse behaviors in schools such as bullying, isolation, socioemotional difficulties, violence, and academic challenges.

Additionally, information from the qualitative interviews shed light on particular risk behaviors that take place in school. In this case, the difference was not between the districts, but between grade levels. The middle school interviewees discussed more extreme forms of self-harm and suicidal ideation among their homeless students compared to reports from staff members working in elementary schools. Despite this difference, the participants stressed the fact that homeless students are at higher risk of presenting or experiencing risk behaviors in school. The majority of participants (20 of 27) also indicated that they attribute these behaviors not solely to the homelessness situation, but also to additional factors that could be associated with homelessness (e.g., family challenges). The most prominent issues that came up were related to mental health, bullying, and victimization.

In their interviews, elementary school participants in the high-SES district described different behaviors demonstrated by homeless students, including socioemotional difficulties, sleeping in class, lack of motivation, and mental health issues. A teacher in Elementary School 2 stated: “A lot of times there's a lack of motivation. It appears to be a lack of motivation, when probably in all reality it's just an inability to focus because they're just trying to survive.”

An administrator from elementary school 2 stated:

She [student experiencing homelessness] started just a nervous wreck, started picking her eyebrows. So her eye—she's had chucnks out of her eyebrows. One I think is completely gone. … She's fully capable. It's not that she's not capable. I just think she can't focus to do it.

In middle school, behaviors were described as more extreme and evident, whereas interviewees at the elementary level did not describe much bullying or self-harm. One middle school administrator said:

I think that the bullying occurs here. I think that the kids are still picked on because of their—the way they dress, their lack of being out in the community because their parents don't have the resources. My group of kids that I'm thinking about do a lot of more self-harm kind of things—cutters, a lot of suicide talk—not necessarily doing anything about it but they do talk a lot about not being here anymore, “I don't want to be here anymore.” … Sometimes these kids are the bully. Because they are looking for any place to shine, and I use that word very loosely, because you do shine when you are the bully. Not in a good way, but you do shine.

This theme highlights how the school experience of homeless students is multifaceted and that schools are locations and contexts in which homeless students experience many risk behaviors. Moreover, this theme demonstrates that regardless of the schools' or districts' SES context, homeless students are at risk of experiencing adverse behaviors while in school.

3.3 ∣. Theme 3: Intersection of homelessness and immigration and undocumented status

The intersection between being homeless and an immigrant or part of a family of immigrants, specifically Hispanic or Latino families, was prevalent across all schools and districts. This intersection was also found to be related to the homelessness category of doubled up. This theme is unique to the context of the districts discussed in this paper due to their proximity to the border with Mexico and it is potentially related to geographic context. In response to a qualitative question in the survey, teachers reported that immigrant or illegal status prevents families from seeking help. This was also prevalent at the district level, where personnel members also described most homeless students as being Hispanic. A low–medium-SES district administrator said: “Well, I would definitely say the majority of our transitional [students] are [from] Hispanic families. I would say probably … at least half or even more, maybe 60%, are Hispanic families.”

A high-SES district administrator stated:

What I see in Mexican families or Latino families, not necessarily Mexican but all Latino families, is that they have an ability to bond together. They will put two or three families together in a home. Some cultures don't do that. And so, they are at a greater risk of failing even more.

The cultural and immigration context was found to be especially relevant to the doubled-up category, and participants described it to be a challenge in the identification process and a barrier to providing services to students and their families. Participants distinguished among different categories of homelessness and shared that Hispanic or Latino students might fall under the doubled-up category more often compared to other ethnic and racial groups:

I feel like the homelessness—truly the homelessness situation—is really kind of a White kid problem and the shared space is more kind of the Hispanic [problem], where they are willing to double up, triple up, quadruple up because family first and that cultural tight family. But I don't think that our families that are doing that, the Hispanic [families], considered themselves to be homeless. (Middle school teacher)

A high-SES district administrator from Elementary School 2 said:

I guess like our “lives with” [category], we could take a look and see, like, what the ethnicity, you know, issue is with that. … I would have a feeling that that's a lot of—some of that is with the “lives with.” I don't have—none of our ones that are, like, truly, truly homeless, like, do not have a place to stay. I'm not aware of any of our, like, Hispanic population or those—it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I'm just not aware of it. But I do believe there are probably a lot of them that are living with other people.

Additionally, the issue of students or their families being undocumented came up both in the interviews and surveys. Across all schools, teachers and staff members reported that while thinking about students they have encountered throughout the years who were eligible for MVA services, some were undocumented. Specifically, in the low–medium-SES district, both elementary and middle school staff members indicated that they either had undocumented homeless students (elementary: 35%, n = 7; middle: 40%, n = 8) or didn't know if their homeless students were undocumented (elementary: 40%, n = 12; middle: 40%, n = 12). Similarly, in the high-SES district, teachers in both schools reported that they had undocumented homeless students (Elementary School 2: 45.7%, n = 16; Elementary School 3: 46.2%, n = 6) or didn't know if their students were undocumented (Elementary School 2: 45.7%, n = 16; Elementary School 3: 38.5%, n = 5).

This theme highlights the fact that despite the difference in their SES context, both districts faced the challenge of balancing cultural sensitivity, legal issues around immigration, and homelessness services. It also furthers our understanding of the challenge of the doubled-up category from a cultural perspective.

3.4 ∣. Theme 4: Attitudes toward poverty, housing instability, and homelessness

Findings about the approach of each district and the community toward poverty and homelessness indicate a core dissimilarity between the districts. The city in which the low–medium-SES district is located is a diverse community in terms of income, and the district serves mainly low–medium-SES students and families. Because the community is diverse and poverty is a familiar concept for the district, school, and neighborhood, there are many services in the form of shelters, affordable housing, food pantries, and free health clinics, which indicates an awareness of poverty and homelessness in the community. A review of newspaper articles in ProQuest from the past 25 years regarding homelessness in the city provided a glimpse of perceptions of homelessness in the area. During the past 25 years, 78 newspaper articles were published regarding homelessness in the low–medium-SES district city. Although none of the articles mentioned homelessness in schools, their main messages were related to efforts to support people experiencing homelessness and a lobby of interfaith organizations that advance services in the area.

Multiple participants at both the district and school levels, including teachers, principals, and district personnel members, described the resources in the community as a valuable strength in addressing the needs of homeless students. The goal of these services is to serve the entire community, not only homeless students. The district had an ongoing relationship with these agencies, as a district-level administrator described:

We work with outside agencies … interfaith organization community services. … It's a social service, and they can provide housing vouchers, they can provide food vouchers, they can provide supplies. We also work with agencies that can provide counseling and medical support and so, those are things that the site coordinators would work with a family … the support from the outside agencies.

Additionally, each school in the low–medium-SES district had a homeless coordinator assigned by the district office who was charged with facilitating relationships with agencies in the vicinity while building a network relevant to the school site. This reflects keen awareness at the school and district level that the role of the school is to help provide services, support, and referrals to families that may need economic resources. This partially confirms the hypothesis, which assumed that districts would differ based on their SES context. Particularly, it aligns with the theoretical assumption that a low–medium-SES district would be situated to better support homeless students due to experience with poverty.

Just as the larger community provides the context for the district, the district and local communities provide the context for schools. The organizational structure of the district places the local site as the main source of service provision to homeless students, and both schools in the low–medium-SES district were similar in their description of the outside community as a diverse community in terms of SES. This overall diversity created an awareness of poverty and low-SES students, which has manifested in both services and the fact that students who experience homelessness do not necessarily stand out compared to their peers, as described by an elementary school staff member in an interview: “A lot of our students come from very low-income housing and we have million-dollar-home families that are here. So, I don't think the two [homeless] students that I'm familiar with stood out a lot.”

This perception was also evident at the middle school level, as a participant described: “You have these kids from all walks of life, also through economic background, many different, you know, races and ethnicities and language represented. So, there's just a lot of diversity and a lot of needs.”

In contrast, in the higher-SES district, the community's perception of homelessness was presented mainly as negative and an obstacle that affects the district's approach to homelessness and capacity to assist homeless students. In a similar review of newspaper articles from the past 25 years regarding homelessness in the high-SES district's city, only about 30 articles were found, far fewer than in the lower-SES district. Most articles presented a negative approach toward the homeless population in the city, with the mayor expressing strong support for an aggressive enforcement plan to crack down on encampments.

In terms of local services, the region features no homeless shelters and only one housing project. Often, homeless students and their families must travel to neighboring cities to receive services. In their interviews, district-level administrators and pupil personnel service providers noted that the negative community perception of homelessness was a barrier to assisting homeless students. A district-level participant stated:

In this community, in their heart of hearts, it's not something that they want to address. It's something they want to just go away. I think it has a little bit to do with fear. Fear of homelessness and what that might bring, “Why are they homeless? Is there a criminal element attached to it? Are there drugs attached to it?” I think there's false pride that our community is this—that “I live here. We don't have that where I live.” There's part of that. I think out there in the community, there is that perception.

3.4.1 ∣. Variations between schools by districts

Unlike the low–medium-SES district, in the high-SES district, the economic community context of the schools varied more widely and the perception of homelessness differed across schools in the district. This contradiction between the district SES and the schools' SES created a challenge, particularly for the school with lower SES. As shown in Table 1, there was a difference between the schools regarding SES, as a participant in the lower-SES school (Elementary School 2) described in an interview:

This particular school looks really completely different than the district. If you look at our demographics and you look compared to the rest of the schools, we're like a polar opposite of the district. So, we're very unique in that we are one of two Title I schools in the district, school-wide Title I. This particular school, when you look at our testing scores and our demographics and our mobility, we kind of reflect more of if you look at our whole state. We don't look anything like our own district. So that can pose problems at times. There's some kind of—there's a disconnect between what the school needs and what the rest of the district needs, so, very, very different than any other school in this district.

Awareness of poverty in the districts is an overarching theme that runs through the following themes presented in this section. This awareness seems to be relevant to how school districts organized around the issue of homelessness.

3.5 ∣. Theme 5: District organizational structure and demographics as forces that affect the role of schools for homeless students

Both districts were compliant with the MVA. They both identified a district homeless liaison, allowed for immediate enrollment when a family or student identified as homeless and provided some type of transportation to homeless students based on distance from the school. However, the organizational structure differed between the districts, including its design and the context of the perceived problem.

3.5.1 ∣. District organization: Centralized versus decentralized approach to service provision to homeless students

The overall organization of the districts could be distinguished by whether they used a centralized or decentralized strategy to organize service delivery. According to the district homeless liaison, the low–medium-SES district recognized the homelessness problem in the district a few years ago. Based on that recognition, administrators made a few changes to learn about the problem in the district and develop best practices and services. This included a decentralized service provision delivery structure that puts the schools at the center of service delivery by assigning a homeless liaison or coordinator at the school level and providing annual training at the beginning of each year to school coordinators. The transition of services to the school level was an intentional decision based on experience. The district liaison explained the rationale for the decision in an interview:

For the most part, probably 98% of the interaction happens at the site, with the school coordinator [liaison], which we found makes families more comfortable—they are used to the site, they know the staff of the site, usually they know the coordinator, and so they feel more comfortable than a stranger from the district's office, so I often coordinate and manage and organize based on what the site coordinators share.

Hence, the organizational structure of service delivery to homeless students and families is decentralized, and most services, including identification, are expected to occur at the school level. Additionally, other services are available for all students at the school level, such as counseling, FRL, and clothing donations. These services and their delivery at the school level may be related to the district's demographics and organizational decisions, in terms of placing the school at the center of communication for students.

Despite the intentional choice to keep services rooted at the school as part of a strategy to keep families connected to familiar personnel, not all individuals in the school know to whom they should turn if they identify a homeless student. In fact, based on the survey, teachers in both schools lacked awareness of both the district and school homeless liaisons. Only two of 50 teachers knew of the school homeless liaison (one in each school), and only four of 50 teachers knew of the district homeless liaison (two in each school). This also emerged in the qualitative data, as one teacher's response in the survey indicated: “The thing that would better help me assist homeless students is having one person here at school who can tell me exactly what to do for a family.”

There was also a difference between the elementary and middle schools in terms of awareness of the school coordinator and the organizational structure. In interviews at Elementary School 1, although not all participants were aware of the homeless liaison, they did mention the homeless coordinator as a point of reference for service provision.

The organizational structure of services for homeless students in the higher-SES district was highly centralized at the district level; most services, such as transportation and even clothing supplies, were provided at the district level. The multiple units were not connected to one another, and no organizational structure connected the district to schools. The lack of communication between the different district-level units was evident during interviews in both schools. An Elementary School 3 participant stated:

So, I know we are supporting kids in this area, but I don't know that we have, you know—I think that a lot of the stuff the district does is more so like they provide the resources. I don't know if there's— but I haven't really had to deal with them. Because they're always aware, and I'm sure for privacy and … other reasons, I think they'd contact the parents directly. I'm not necessarily a middleman.

Moreover, there were multiple district-level staff members responsible for various services for homeless students, each responsible for a different element in serving homeless students, but they were not in close communication with one another. All participants at the district level agreed that more needs to be done for homeless students. However, the context of the community and a lack of awareness of homelessness seemed to be a barrier that might have led to this centralized system organization.

3.5.2 ∣. Differences in the identification process between districts based on SES context

Differences existed between the districts and schools regarding unique practices for identifying homeless students based on their SES context. In the low–medium SES district with higher poverty awareness, staff members developed unique practices for identifying homeless students. For example, when students demonstrated behavior problems, staff members acknowledged challenges regarding poverty or housing instability and asked students about those issues. A participant at the administration level in the participating middle school described this phenomenon:

The other way we find out [that students are homeless] is they get in trouble. It means that they talk back to a teacher. They came incredibly late. They have come in the same clothes every day. So those are the kinds of things that we really look for. And isolating themselves or the opposite.

School employees relied on an intentional line of questions related to housing situations and the home context when investigating behavior issues. Staff members were aware that many students cope with challenges at home related to financial hardship.

In the high-SES district, participants at both schools mentioned that the identification process happens at the district level. Yet there seemed to be differences in awareness of homelessness between the schools. The higher-SES school relied on families to report their housing situation. However, because the lower-SES school had greater awareness of poverty compared to the district, the staff also considered poverty and financial hardship as a challenge faced by students. In one school, school-related identification practices were similar to schools in the low–medium-SES district. For example, a teacher (Elementary School 2) described how a homeless student was identified:

I found out they were in a motel because the student reeked of cigarette smoke. … I asked her, “Why, what is going on at home?” and she said that in the hotel room they are living in is a smoking room. So, mom and dad smoke in the hotel room with her, so that's how I figured out they were in a hotel and after that, it was kind of a shock to me. I never had a student that lived in a hotel before, so I contacted the office and they've known [about] the case for quite some time.

Even though both districts shared the major challenge of identification and lack of awareness of the school experience of homeless students, the way in which schools and districts supported their homeless students was also affected by the awareness of poverty and the structural organization of service provision to homeless students.

3.6 ∣. Theme 6: Supporting homeless students: From individual initiatives to school-level support

Across all schools and districts, individual initiatives to support homeless students were prevalent. Those individual initiatives were manifested by teachers, principals, staff members, and district-level individuals and usually took place in response to feeling helpless due to recognition of a gap in services in each district. It is important to differentiate between (a) individual initiatives of homeless liaisons and school homeless coordinators and (b) initiatives developed by staff members who were not officially responsible for these services.

In the low–medium-SES district, both school homeless coordinators were innovative and had built a strong network of agencies and organizations to support homeless students. Both school-based homeless coordinators created a network of school-related organizations and agencies in addition to agencies linked to the districts. This resulted in donations of clothes, backpacks, and shoes and additional referrals to services in the community, as described by a coordinator:

I have a list of services that the district gave them to me [and] I have a list of resources and sometimes I've just had them over the years. … Also, I volunteer myself for the Assistance League, which is a great organization. They do a lot for kids.

Moreover, additional initiatives, such as staff members donating gift cards and items to some families in need and the collaborative work of staff members to provide as many resources as possible, were mentioned in the survey responses of teachers.

In the high-SES district, district-level staff members were highly innovative in providing support for students, including participating in meetings with neighboring cities to learn about homeless services and use resources available to the district. Specifically, the district homeless liaison built rapport with students and their families, creating relationships that extended beyond the school year to after graduation:

I had another kid—special education—whose parents basically decided they had enough of him and kicked him out. He was living on somebody's sofa, taking care of his own needs and anything else, then all of the sudden he shows up here asking me if I have some food, “I haven't eaten in 3 days.” So, we had some stuff laying around and we make sure he ate. Then we had some water and stuff, and I had one of my staff members pick up some things from the grocery store.

Findings show that in its efforts to support homeless students, the higher-SES school mainly referred students to the district, whereas the lower-SES school created multiple sources of support in the school site. For example, as captured in one of the observations, the principal kept energy bars and snacks for homeless students. As one of the identified homeless students headed home after class, he was chewing on his backpack, stating he was hungry. The principal immediately reached for the snack box and handed him food for the trip home.

In an initial meeting with this principal, she handed over a book about poverty and education, indicating that all school staff members had gone through training to learn about issues of poverty, indicating a high level of awareness of poverty at the school in comparison to the district. One teacher also described personally donating clothes to a homeless student:

[I donate] everything I can, and … my parents were buying jackets and sending them with school with me to get to this girl. I wanted to make sure that she was getting the free lunch in the cafeteria, which she was, and that was kind of my first reaction for about a good month or so, so I just wanted to take this girl home and help her.

In addition to individual initiatives, the school had created an organizational structure that the attendance clerk, who had been working in the school for nearly 20 years, had created, serving as an unofficial school homeless coordinator. She described the structure as follows:

I pretty much know who is low income, who's really struggling, just because I know all the families. So, the services that I provide is, I personally like giving an underwear and food for the families. And we also—I refer them to the pantry. We refer them to an organization to get clothes. I'll just call the district and get—I just picked up clothes yesterday for a family from the district. Through [the district], we have money that comes from the MVA. And we can get two outfits, a hygiene kit, so we will get items from there. So, I keep in contact with them because I know what I need. … I also know where to send them for free immunizations. I know what to tell them to get around some ways that I probably should not. But I pass that information on to them, and I always keep active and aware of what's out there to offer.

The link that the attendance clerk created among the school, district, and community was extremely helpful in supporting homeless students and providing them with services.

This theme highlights the fact that every staff member who participated in this study and worked with homeless students and their families had to be innovative and creative while often devoting personal time and donations to support homeless students. Regarding comparisons between the two districts, the high-SES district staff, and especially the low-SES school in that district, had to come up with individual initiatives to support homeless students, often due to the lack of services and awareness in the community.

This finding is unique in the sense that it illuminates the similarities among individuals' intentions to support homeless students and highlights the way participants were uniquely situated to support homeless students. However, this theme also illustrates that the lack of organizational structure could lead to a lack of communication and awareness regarding individual and collective organized efforts to support homeless students.

4 ∣. DISCUSSION

4.1 ∣. District- and school-level SES and responses to homeless students

The district-level comparison showed that the community context and SES of each district had important implications in terms of perceptions of homelessness and, as a result, service delivery to homeless students. Figure 1 is a visual depiction for understanding the processes of identification and service delivery to homeless students based on the findings.

FIGURE 1.

Conceptual model for supporting homeless students in different SES contexts. LCAP, LCAP, Local Control and Accountability Plan; SES, socioeconomic status.

In Figure 1, multiple exterior units played an integral part in shaping district and school-level decisions and organizational structure when it came to student homelessness. When considering the role of the SES context, the low–medium-SES school district had high awareness of poverty, which benefited homeless students. In this case, the fact that district awareness aligned with that of exterior community stakeholders was a step forward in supporting homeless students. In the high-SES district, this was not the case; the outside community was often described as a barrier to providing services to homeless students. This was also demonstrated when presenting study findings in a meeting with the district's administrators, in which they described that based on their expected budget cuts and input from community stakeholders, services directed to low-SES students such as English tutoring, positive behavioral interventions, and supports, and a foster youth liaison were removed from their new LCAP.

Also in Figure 1, there are double-sided arrows between units and circles, which points to the centrality of the two-way communication and the responsibility of each unit. For instance, based on Astor and Benbenishty's (2019) heuristic model, the high-SES district has the potential to influence the external community and raise awareness of the needs of low-SES families in the area. At the school level, the schools in the low–medium-SES district described a fairly similar situation when discussing the district and community contexts. However, in the high-SES district, the low-SES school described a disconnection between the district and the school and emphasized the unique SES context of the school as an important factor in how homeless students are perceived and the level of awareness of poverty. This school can be described as an outlier in the district, and even though it is constrained by the larger context regarding its ability to best serve homeless students, various important internal dynamics have positioned the school in a better way to address homeless students.

In examining differences among schools across all districts, the local school SES context was found to influence variations in awareness of poverty. The low-SES school in the high-SES school district was similar to schools in the low–medium-SES district. The findings indicate that the school's local SES context matters as much as the district's SES and that interventions designed to support homeless students should account for different risks that students may be coping with in different age groups.

The conceptual model presented here suggests the pivotal role of an organizational structure that focuses on the school site as the central place to identify and serve homeless students, while having bidirectional line of communication with the district level and the local community. The findings highlight the importance of the local community context, especially because schools' characteristics may differ from district characteristics, and the need to assign a school homeless liaison in addition to the mandatory MVA requirement to assign a district homeless liaison. Additionally, many school-level initiatives to support homeless students were described, yet there was no documentation of these activities. Therefore, data collected should not only include students' housing situation and school experience, but also the schools' support initiatives and poverty awareness.

In addition, the model focuses on three main issues related to student homelessness: identification, the school experience, and service provision. The findings suggest that these issues should be targeted and monitored on an ongoing basis at the school and district levels from multiple perspectives—particularly the identification piece, because relying solely on the registration process leads to underidentification. New avenues for identification, including the training of teachers and other staff members to identify homeless students and gaining information about the housing situation more than once a year, should be considered.

4.2 ∣. Unexpected findings and implications for future research and practice

The findings show that despite differences in their SES context, districts and schools did not differ regarding the major challenges of identifying homeless students and being aware of them in schools. Furthermore, the school experience of identified students was similar across schools and districts. This indicates that despite the higher-SES district's ability to allocate resources to support these students and even though individuals in the lower-SES district were trained in providing services to students in need, homeless students went largely unnoticed in both contexts. These shared challenges highlight the extent of the problem and the role of federal and state policy in promoting awareness and better meeting the needs of these students. This supports existing literature that suggested current policies that focus on providing equal opportunities for education for homeless students are necessary but not sufficient (Miller, 2011). Despite these overarching similarities between the districts, the processes that guided the decision-making and structural organization regarding service delivery demonstrated that although both districts were struggling to find ways to better serve their homeless students, the origins and the nature of their struggle differed.

The differences between the districts suggest that their needs in addressing the homeless student population varied based on their context. The findings suggest that the low–medium-SES district may need interventions focused on (a) training of the staff regarding student homelessness and identification of homeless students and (b) structuring communication between the different levels and staff members. It also requires the inclusion of all staff members in the school and district, especially teachers, who often remain outside of the circle of information and may have meaningful information regarding their students who experience homelessness.

Based on the findings, the high-SES district may need a different type of intervention to meet the needs of homeless students and the schools that serve them. To better serve homeless students, a shift is needed in the organizational structure to decentralize services delivered both at the school and district levels, with a clear hierarchy regarding the different roles of each staff member.

In addition, like the low–medium-SES district, training is needed among all staff members regarding the definition of homelessness and awareness of homeless students in schools. Unlike the low–medium-SES district, in which the external community and education system share an awareness of poverty and, as a result, provide services to those in need, the high-SES district carries a responsibility to educate the broader community about poverty, homelessness, and the obligation to provide equal opportunity for education for all students, as mandated by the ESSA (2015) and MVA (1987).

This study has implications for the implementation of the MVA as a high-level federal policy in both districts, including how actors at the district and school levels are adapted and policies are created to advance local interests (Marsh, 2016). Because the MVA's mandatory requirements focus mainly on access to school, states and districts struggle when it comes to creating services that advance the ability of students to succeed in school. The findings from this study show that staff members have forged unique initiatives and organized in a structural manner to provide services to homeless students, even though these elements are missing from the MVA.

Second, this study highlights the role of broad community politics and stakeholders in advancing reforms (C. N. Stone et al., 2001). Multiple actors in the local nested context play a major role in decision-making regarding local education policies (Marsh, 2016). This study demonstrates the importance of community politics as a force that shaped the delivery of services to homeless students. Astor and Benbenishty's (2019) heuristic model addresses this complexity and helps expand our thinking by deconstructing the top-down approach often assumed in education reform literature while emphasizing the dynamic, multidirectional, top-down, and bottom-up elements of schools and districts. This approach recognizes the fact that power is an elusive and fluid concept; therefore, all layers should be addressed both individually and in their context.

4.3 ∣. Doubling up, immigration, and documented status

All schools and districts described an intersection of immigration status and homelessness, specifically regarding the doubled-up category. This theme may be relevant specifically to the larger context of California; however, demographics in other states, such as Texas, demonstrate that students who are Hispanic or Latino constitute many of the identified students who experience homelessness (Institute for Children Poverty & Homelessness, 2016).

Unfortunately, research remains scarce when it comes to the intersection between homelessness and immigration among homeless students, and it is valuable to consider the unique challenges faced by immigrant families that experience homelessness, which may result in lower service use and subsequent underrepresentation in homelessness statistics (Institute for Children Poverty & Homelessness, 2015). In addition, regarding the doubled-up category, which represents most homeless students across the country, Hispanic families should be considered and addressed as a subgroup with unique characteristics. On one hand, Hispanic families may depend on community resources and social networks for support, rather than social services agencies or schools (Institute for Children Poverty & Homelessness, 2015), to reduce their likelihood of being homeless. However, this increases the likelihood that Hispanic students and families will live in doubled-up situations while being isolated from services for which they are eligible. This disconnection may also have implications if housing situations worsen, together with reduced access to programs that can benefit them and prevent conditions leading to homelessness on the streets.

Schools are in a unique position to be a source of support and sanctuary for these students and their families. Although children have the right to an elementary and secondary education regardless of their immigration status across the nation, there is a lack of rapport and trust with social agents, including schools. These shared challenges demonstrate the need to extend the scope of the MVA to include policies that address the underidentification challenge and intersection of homelessness and immigration status. Moreover, the definition of homelessness, specifically the doubled-up category, should be emphasized in training programs for staff members.

4.4 ∣. Conclusions

Homeless students remain an understudied and overlooked population that endures multiple challenges, as do the schools and districts that serve them. The findings show that the challenges are deep-rooted and shaped by internal and external forces. Schools play a major role for homeless students and may be the last social institution with which they interact before disengaging from all social institutions. As this discussion suggests, meeting the substantial challenges involved in building schools and districts that support homeless students will require district policies and practices that explicitly address issues of poverty, homelessness, and injustice.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as the data were administrative data that belongs to the districts.