Homelessness is a growing issue throughout the greater Los Angeles area and the United States as whole. A population within the homeless community that may be overlooked is the unhoused youth (Miller 1). Out of the entire US homeless population, homeless youth are the fastest growing and most vulnerable portion (Miller 1). With the rising numbers of homeless families in the United States, we also observe an increase in the number of homeless students attending public schools (Miller 1). Based on “the National Center on Family Homelessness (2014), there was an 8% increase nationally from 2012 to 2013 in the number of children and adolescents experiencing homelessness” (Havlik 1174). We must recognize that high housing rents coupled with lack of housing in the greater Los Angeles area contribute to the homelessness crisis that leave many adults on the streets (Miller 1). More importantly, we should also acknowledge that sometimes these adults who can’t afford to pay rent also have children they have to support, who also become homeless. When parents don’t have the means to pay for housing, education of their children becomes less of a priority for homeless families (Miller 1). Lack of immunization records, school records, guardianship requirements, proof of residency and lack of transportation are some of the additional barriers of entry for homeless youth to obtain their education (Havlik 1175). These general barriers in addition to the struggle of their parents not being able to make ends meet makes it difficult for homeless youth to maintain a stable learning environment, and they become disproportionately disadvantaged in the schooling system compared to their peers who have met their housing needs.

While there are many barriers to educating homeless youth, transportation is arguably one of the major barriers that prevents students from obtaining the education they rightfully deserve. Transportation is a difficult barrier to overcome because it’s “primarily a local issue; provision of transportation for homeless children and youth often requires new resources; and the mobility of families experiencing homelessness makes the logistics of providing transportation difficult” (Wand 1). Being a local matter, the implementation of transportation in each state or district varies depending on the school’s hours, the set-up of the city(whether its urban or rural), and how traffic affects transportation hours. Because there are so many variable factors, it is often difficult to implement standardized solutions like a state-wide initiative to target transportation. Oftentimes, homeless families move from shelter to shelter or live temporarily in family members’ homes but then are forced to leave (Miller 426). These sudden movements in location hinder the logistical planning of transportation for homeless youth (Miller 426). For these reasons, transportation proves to be a defining obstacle in educating homeless students. Since transportation is a hyperlocal concern that varies between different locations, the solutions must come directly from school districts to ensure the solutions are tailored towards the location of each student. There have been attempts to remedy complications with transportation by hiring homeless liaisons who are individuals that work closely with homeless youth, but their ability to ensure implementation of MVA principles, specifically transportation, has been hindered by their respective barriers like being overworked (Wilkins 58). For this reason, many scholars have suggested collaboration between all levels of administration involved in a homeless child’s life using collaborated and coordinated distribution models (Miller 440). In this essay, I will argue that transportation is one of the major barriers to homeless youth education and that to support the education of homeless youth, school districts should reinforce the role of homeless liaisons and adopt collaborated and coordinated leadership distribution models. While scholars have correctly advocated for collaborated and coordinated leadership distribution models, proper training of homeless liaisons is also necessary to ensure the immediate advocacy of homeless youths’ needs which will secure proper transportation of students to their school of origin.

Lack of transportation for students produces multiple issues for homeless youth trying to attend school. Firstly, “inconsistent transportation is a barrier that can result in high truancy rates, often comorbid with an increased probability of dropping out of school entirely” (Havlik 1175). When students miss school, they can’t actively develop “the skills necessary to be successful in their course-work” which makes them disadvantaged compared to their housed peers who don’t struggle to find transportation (Havlik 1176). However, the lack of access to transportation can be so overwhelming that students may drop out of school altogether which restricts homeless students from even obtaining an education; when unhoused students don’t attend school, they are societally at a disadvantage in obtaining higher education and moving up the ranks of poverty.

The government attempted to address the crisis of homeless youth education with the first draft of the McKinney-Vento Act passed in 1987, but transportation was not regarded as a barrier for homeless youth education within this act (Wand 1). Then, in the 1990 revision, the act required “to provide homeless students with transportation services comparable to those offered to other students attending the same school” (Wand 1). Additionally, the 1990 act ensured that students had to enroll in their school of origin rather than just district of origin, no matter if they moved around within the district (Wand 1). This revision would allow students to maintain a more stable learning environment because they wouldn’t have to readjust to the different school systems and make new friends etc. The latest version of the McKinney-Vento act, No Child Left Behind Act, defines “homelessness, increase[s] students’ school choice options during mobile periods of their lives; mandate[s] that school must immediately enroll and provide services for students who are homeless; and create[s] supportive infrastructures” (Miller 428). The McKinney- Vento act specifically defines homeless youth as students who “ are confronted with periods of difficult mobility” such as students who “ share the housing of other persons, have a primary nighttime residence that is not used as a regular sleeping accommodation, sleep in cars, parks, etc” (Miller 429). By creating a steadfast definition for homeless youth, schools are legally bound to help students who are experiencing homelessness whereas before some students may have slipped through the cracks because their case seemed more ambiguous and the school didn’t have enough resources to help them. The fact that homeless students must have the opportunity to go back to their school of origin even if “they lost their housing” or “move out of the school district” ensures that students maintain a stable learning environment which leads to higher attendance rates and lower dropping out rates (Miller 430). Another requirement of the McKinney-Vento Act is that even if parents don’t have proof of residency, immunization records or previous school records, students must be enrolled in school (Wand 1). The act directly targets some of the previous aforementioned barriers that have stopped countless homeless students from being enrolled in school. Over the past 30 years, there has been consistent revision of the McKinney-Vento act which demonstrates the growing issue of homelessness but also the rising focus on homeless youth.
While the McKinney-Vento act explicitly states that students must be provided transportation to their school of origin “even if that school lies outside the district’s boundaries”, the act doesn’t explicitly state how schools should go about this process. This is where we see a significant gap in policy for transportation of homeless youth. The McKinney-Vento act “does not provide a mechanism for facilitating or funding this provision” (Wand 1). Even if the act requires transportation of homeless youth to their school of origin, if no extra funding is allocated or there is not a standardized mechanism to support the requirement, then it will be difficult to implement transportation requirements in school policy.

In order to address this lack of transportation and other educational gaps, homeless liaisons have been implemented in the past. From a general perspective, homeless liaisons are essential in facilitating the transportation of homeless youth, explaining the rights homeless families receive from the act to the families themselves, and helping create an environment where homeless students can obtain the same opportunities as their housed peers. More specifically, the McKinney-Vento Act states that homeless liaisons are responsible for the “identification of students, equal educational opportunities, available educational services and appropriate referrals, provision of information to parents and guardians regarding transportation, and assistance in accessing transportation” (Havlik 1176). Firstly, homeless liaisons must identify unhoused children within their schools, and then they can ensure equal opportunity for their assigned homeless students by providing services like tutoring, counseling, and supplying school stationary (Havlik 1177). To address the lack of transportation, homeless liaisons work with the students’ family and with the school districts’ transportation department to “make a decision about the need for transportation based on the best interest of the student” (Wand 1). By creating trusting relationships with unhoused families and their children, they can facilitate the transportation of their assigned homeless youth to their school of origin and ensure equal educational opportunities (Havlik 1178). Usually, these local liaisons can be any staff within the school district of the student; for example, they can be social workers, school counselors, administrators, educators, secretaries, or even superintendents (Havlik 1177). They are not required to work full time, and their working hours mostly depend on how many students are homeless within the district (Havlik 1177).

While homeless liaisons in theory can create equal opportunities for homeless students, there are multiple barriers that hinder their ability to carry out their duties properly. Homeless liaisons have reported “feeling unqualified to perform the job tasks of homeless liaisons” because they feel they lack the understanding of the MVA law (Wilkins 59). Additionally, in a California study, researchers found that “92% of homeless liaisons reported that they typically spend less than 25 percent of their time carrying out their MVA-related duties”(Wilkins 59). Homeless liaisons also work other jobs while performing their duties as homeless liaisons, and oftentimes they are not being paid extra for their role as a homeless liaison (Havlik 1177). They double as secretaries, administrators, school counselors etc (Havlik 1177). By working multiple jobs, homeless liaisons can feel overworked and like they lack incentive to meet the MVA requirements of helping the children they are paired with in obtaining transportation or other duties (Havlik 1178).

There is a wide network of individuals besides homeless liaisons who are involved in making decisions for homeless youth. Actors usually involved in “arranging transportation for out of district homeless students” include principals “students/families, district homeless liaisons, directors of transportation, and shelter personnel” (Miller 439). While the McKinney-Vento act identifies “school roles, [and] create[s] homeless- specific positions” like liaisons and transportation directors, this can also “heighten ambiguity and tension” within the positions involved with providing transportation (Miller 437). All four of these actors stem “from diverse organization[s] and professional position[s]– who often have little relational or cultural understanding of one another” (Miller 441). The varying roles of these four actors, specifically between homeless liaisons and other the other roles, demonstrates that there is a general lack of communication “that mark[s] district-shelter, intradistrict, and interdistrict relationships” which is “bred during years of organizational detachment and isolation” because their tasks may appear as separate and therefore must be conducted separately (Miller 441). This lack of communication between organizational groups can result in liaisons feeling overwhelmed.

In order to combat homeless liaisons’ feeling overworked, we have to implement a collective and collaborated leadership model that emphasizes active collaboration between all higher authorities that are involved in the homeless students’ lives. Collaborated leadership distribution happens when coworkers work together “in place and time” and on the same routine (Miller 440). Coordinated distribution occurs when certain leadership routines have to happen before other plans go into effect (Miller 439). Applying these two theories to providing transportation to homeless students, there needs to be collaborated leadership distribution in regards to principals, the shelter agency, and homeless liaisons to determine which school the child should attend in the first place (Miller 440). Then, after that decision is made, the transportation director, homeless liaison and shelter representative must plan the precise arrangements for the bus routes and the times for when students should be dropped off and picked up (Miller 440). When principals, shelter agencies, and homeless liaisons work together to determine school decisions for the unhoused student, they are meeting at a common place and time which demonstrates collaborated distribution. Collaborated distribution is essential so that the responsibilities of decision making don’t solely fall on homeless liaisons which can contribute to making them feel overworked. When transportation directors and homeless liaisons work to finalize transportation routes, this cooperation represents a coordinated distribution model because multiple parties come together to finalize the enactment of the plan but only once homeless liaison and parents have decided which school the child should attend (Miller 440). Each distribution model effectively relies on each other which emphasizes the teamwork between all hierarchies of organization involved in unhoused childrens’ lives. In a study done by Brittany Wilkins and Mary H. Mullins, these researchers found that “participants who rated the frequency of collaboration with teachers as seldom were different than those who rated collaboration with teachers as often” which suggests “a positive indication of frequency of collaboration can make a difference in implementation” of the MVA act. (Wilkins 62). This second study supports the push for collaboration amongst different levels of organization involved in homeless youths’ lives. Notice that in both of these distribution types, homeless liaisons are essential in advocating for the needs of the homeless child as they are the connecting factor between the different levels of administration.

Even if we implement these collective and collaborated distribution models, homeless liaisons may still feel underqualified in their training to help their assigned unhoused students. While homeless liaisons have reported attending required annual “trainings on homelessness and education”, many have expressed that “on-the-job learning was the crux of their success” (Havlik 1187). I propose that rather than requiring mandatory annual training, school districts should implement biweekly training during the summer in preparation for the start of school in the fall. However, the format of these trainings would not be a conference format consisting of only lectures like past annual trainings; I propose that homeless liaisons and past students who they have worked with (if they are willing) can come in for training sessions and give talks about what has worked for them for obtaining transportation and meeting other needs of the student. By being able to hear the child’s side of their experience working with homeless liaisons, training homeless liaisons will become more attuned to the worries of homeless children who are faced with situations where they lack transportation or food. This format allows training homeless liaisons to obtain advice from their more experienced peers and ensures that they obtain first-hand experience before entering the job. By obtaining this firsthand experience, homeless liaisons will feel more comfortable and qualified in their position which will ultimately diminish their feelings of being overworked because they have a better sense of how to cater to the students’ transportation needs.

Homeless students not being able to obtain transportation to their school of origin begs the question of why there are homeless students in the United States in the first place. Unaffordable housing perpetuates the cycle of underserved families not obtaining proper housing which results in the children of these families not meeting proper housing conditions. The fact is some districts let homeless students move from their school instead of figuring out why that student can’t consistently make it to school. Put simply, this is an act of neglect on the school’s and government’s behalf. Homeless individuals are restricted by their socioeconomic status, and their status is perpetuated by the oppressive conditions in which they live. Any child should be given the equal opportunity to obtain an education because if not, their right to learn freely is being infringed upon and their potential becomes limited.

Works Cited

Abdul Rahman, Mai. “The U.S. Homeless Student Population: Homeless Youth Education, Review of Research Classifications and Typologies, and the U.S. Federal Legislative Response.” Child and Youth Care Forum, vol. 44, no. 5, 2015, pp. 687–709, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9298-2. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Hallett, Ronald E. “Beyond Backpacks and Bus Tokens: Next Steps for a District Homeless Student Initiative.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 28, no. 6, 2015, pp. 693–713 Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Havlik, Stacey A. “Local Liaisons: Roles, Challenges, and Training in Serving Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness.” Urban Education, vol. 55, no. 8, 2020, pp. 1172–202. SAGE Journals Online. Accessed 28 Apr. 2023.

James, Barbara Wand. “Transporting Homeless Students to Increase Stability: A Case Study of Two Texas Districts.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 72, no. 1, 2003, pp. 126–40. JSTOR. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Jozefowicz-Simbeni, Debra M. “Services to Homeless Students and Families: The McKinney-Vento Act and Its Implications for School Social Work Practice.” Children and Schools, vol. 28, no. 1, 2006, pp. 37–44 Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Miller, Peter M. “Brokering Educational Opportunity for Homeless Students and Their Families.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 28, no. 6, 2015, pp. 730–49 Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Miller, Peter Michael. “An Examination of the McKinney — Vento Act and Its Influence on the Homeless Education Situation.” Educational Policy, vol. 25, no. 3, May 2011, pp. 424–50. SAGE Journals Online. Accessed 20 Mar. 2023.

Moore, Hadass. “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.” Community Psychology, vol. 51, no. 3, 2023, pp. 1124–48 Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Peter, Miller M. “A Critical Analysis of the Research on Student Homelessness.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 81, no. 3, 2011, pp. 308+. JSTOR. Accessed 26 Mar. 2023.

Wilkins, Brittany Taylor, and Mary H. Mullins. “Homeless Liaisons’ Awareness about the Implementation of the McKinney–Vento Act.” Children and Schools, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 57–64 Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.