McKinney-Vento (Eligibility)
To search for specific keywords, use the Ctrl+F (Windows) or Cmd+F (Mac) function.
You are right to think about the reasons for sharing housing, as the law is clear that it must be “due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” 42 U.S.C. §11434a(2) It does seem that in this situation, the family is staying with grandma due to the mother’s health needs, rather than due to a loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reason. They have fixed, regular and adequate housing, and the only reason they are staying off and on with grandma is due to the mother’s health needs. It doesn’t seem that their financial needs are a reason for the doubling up.
As long as there is stability in this housing, this would not be a McKinney-Vento situation. Legally, this is not “sharing the housing of others” because the home is, in fact, their housing. The students are just staying there more often than usual. However, if there is instability in the housing due to how the housed parent is receiving the students on the extra days, eligibility may be questionable. For example, are there threats to force the children out of the house on those extra days? If the unhoused parent chooses to take the students with her to a motel, shelter, or other homeless situation for the days she has custody, then the students must be identified under McKinney-Vento.
I agree it is important to look at the housing situation prior to entry into the treatment program. Since the family is in the program due to substance abuse treatment and not loss of housing, the family may have a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. If that’s the case, then they are not in the transitional program due to lack of a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence and would not be eligible. However, they may have lost housing upon entering the program and will be homeless at the time of discharge. In that case, they would be eligible because they lost housing and are in temporary housing in the treatment program.
Since the parent is in the program for substance abuse treatment and not due to homelessness necessarily, you need to talk with the parent about what their housing situation was prior to entry into the program. If the family has (or had) a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, then they are not living in the housing program due to lack of alternative accommodations and would not qualify for McKinney-Vento services. If they lost housing upon entering the program and will not have housing on discharge, you should qualify them now.
Every situation needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are questions you’ll want to consider when thinking about the situation you described: Was there a loss of housing? Are they sharing housing due to financial hardship? Are they both on the lease and can they come and go as they please? What’s the long-term plan? Where would they go if they couldn’t stay there?
If both partners decide to live together for mutual benefit, or because they are in a relationship and want to live together, then it is not a homeless situation. If one partner moves in out of necessity – she has nowhere else to go, trying to find a place but can’t, etc. – then it would likely be a doubled-up situation under McKinney-Vento.
There are arguments on both sides, but it appears the student is not eligible. Based on the whole situation, it seems like this is a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. They have a valid lease agreement in the mother’s name, the rent is being paid, the housing is adequate, and the student states she has what she needs. The mother is involved with the youth and providing some measure of supervision. It may be a precarious situation, and the family has economic need. But the housing is stable and adequate (at least for now).
In this specific case, the answer is no, the family is not eligible, but only because they are not staying at the hotel “due to lack of adequate alternative accommodations,” per the McKinney-Vento Act. 42 USC §11434a. The only caveat is if the conditions of the motel room are such that they are inadequate – i.e. over-crowding, infestations, mold – the same criteria you would use to make any determination of inadequate housing under McKinney-Vento.
In other cases of families in motels, if they are there due to the lack of adequate alternative accommodations, then they remain eligible, even if the stay is long-term.
Yes, you are able to provide services and support without a parent signature. In fact, you must provide appropriate services to all eligible children and youth, without a parent’s signature. As you know, parents may have many reasons for not signing paperwork admitting to homelessness. You need to provide services regardless, if you determine the child is experiencing homelessness. At the same time, the parent can decline services. That is the parent’s right. Either way, you should count all children you identify as homeless in your data, regardless of signatures or services provided.
There are some steps you need to follow under the law. First, you have to put in writing why you believe the family did not meet the definition of homelessness, and information about how the parent can dispute the decision if she wishes. If anything was lost in translation – for example, if she started out doubled-up and then bought a house – she’ll have the opportunity to share any supporting information.
If she chooses not to dispute your decision, or if the dispute process results in a determination that the family was never eligible, then yes, you would remove McKinney-Vento status and tell the parent that she can apply for free lunch through the usual application process. For educational stability purposes, it likely would be best for the student to continue at your school for the rest of the year. It would be a best practice to offer that stability to the student, if his mother can provide/arrange transportation. However, that is not required if her McKinney-Vento status was fraudulent.
Yes. If one of the parents meets the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, and the student resides some of the week with that parent, then the student meets the definition of homelessness. The instability between the housed and the homeless parent constitutes lack of fixed, regular, and adequate housing.
Yes. If the family was experiencing homelessness, they retain their rights, even if the school did not learn about their homelessness until after they retained housing. They can receive services for the rest of this academic year, and you should count them in your McKinney-Vento data this year.
Eligibility determinations based on pending evictions are case-by-case, as are all determinations of McKinney-Vento eligibility. If a family has been given documentation of an imminent eviction, and they know they will be moving to a homeless situation (going to stay with someone else temporarily, to a motel, to shelter/car/campground, etc.) then their living situation could be determined not to be fixed, regular, and adequate prior to them actually leaving the home. However, if they simply think they will be evicted, but they don’t know when it will happen, or they expect to move into another housed situation, then the eligibility determination will have to wait until more information is available.
This situation should be treated like any family that is losing their housing. If the move with the aunt is going to be a fixed, regular and adequate arrangement, then they are not McKinney-Vento eligible. A key question is whether they are sharing the aunt’s housing due to their loss of housing (see 42 USC §11434a). It certainly seems like that is the case. Given the suddenness of the family having to move, it appears likely that this is an emergency arrangement because the family has nowhere else to go; that it’s unclear how long they’ll stay with the aunt; and that the housing might not be adequate for everyone. Any of those conditions would make this a McKinney-Vento situation. On the other hand, if it turns out that there’s enough room in the home for everyone; the aunt actively wants them to move in to split the rent, child care responsibilities, etc.; and the aunt and the family agree that this is going to be the living arrangement long-term, then the children may not be McKinney-Vento eligible.
Yes. Based on the information you provided, the student is staying with others due to loss of housing, and the situation does not sound fixed, regular, and adequate (no custody, and father is incarcerated, presumably temporarily). 42 USC 11434a(2)(A)-(B).
This answer depends on the kind of program that is assisting the family. If they are getting rental assistance and nothing else, the lease is in their name, they’ll stay in the same home (hopefully) when the rental assistance ends, and there are not significant program requirements (like attending case management or getting drug tested, etc.), then the housing is basically like having a Section 8 voucher. Those situations are not McKinney-Vento eligible, as long as the housing is adequate. On the other hand, if the program has additional services and requirements–so it’s more like a scattered-site transitional living program than like Section 8–then that would be McKinney-Vento eligible just like transitional housing. 42 USC 11434a(2)(B)(i).
The education subtitle of the McKinney-Vento Act does not define the term “transitional housing.” There are many different kinds of housing programs, and the labels that are used to describe them matter less than whether the conditions of the housing can legitimately be considered fixed, regular and adequate under the education definition of homelessness. 42 USC 11434a(2)(A)-(B). Whether or not a particular housing program would meet the McKinney-Vento education subtitle definition of homelessness hinges on what kind of housing actually is being provided, and the terms of the housing.
For example, some transitional housing programs have the family sign a contract, which essentially is a lease with some conditions that would be considered above and beyond a typical lease (the requirement to be gainfully employed, participate in case management, etc.). Those conditions that are beyond a typical lease agreement usually establish the housing program as transitional, meeting the McKinney-Vento definition of homeless, as opposed to fixed, regular and adequate housing.
Transitional housing programs typically last up to 2 years, while some programs last even longer. Remember that even when a housing situation is determined to qualify as McKinney-Vento, the district still has the ability to determine that, due to the relatively stable nature of the housing situation, enrollment in the local school for the next school year is in the children’s best interest. This best interest determination must be based on specific factors related to the children’s education, and include the right to appeal if the parent disagrees.
Yes, these students are eligible under the McKinney-Vento Act. They qualify because they are staying with others (grandparents) temporarily due to a reason that is similar to loss of housing. 42 USC 11434a(2)(B)(i).
Yes. This language from the McKinney-Vento Act applies:
“The choice regarding placement shall be made regardless of whether the child or youth lives with the homeless parents or has been temporarily placed elsewhere.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(F).
It sounds like the mother has placed the child with her mother due to homelessness. That qualifies as McKinney-Vento eligible. You could speak with the grandmother to ask for more information about the circumstances, as well. You also could revisit the situation at the beginning of the next school year, to see if it looks like they will be staying with the grandmother on a more permanent basis, if the custody is more formalized, etc.
This depends on the sequence of events. If the student stayed temporarily with someone when her mother first went into rehab, and then later moved in with her father, then the student was McKinney-Vento eligible when the mother first went into rehab. However, if the child moved directly from mother’s home to father’s home, we would be inclined to say that this situation does not meet the threshold for eligibility under the McKinney-Vento Act. 42 USC 11434a(2)(A). There was stable and adequate housing with a parent, who also is seeking through legal means to become the student’s permanent home. Without additional information, that does not appear to be a lack of a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
Before disenrolling the student, you would need to try all available means of communication, based on all the information you have about the student. Since we know that homelessness results in frequent moves, loss or disconnection of cell phones, and other interruptions in communication, it is important to try all available methods to communicate with the student or family. If you know of service providers, relatives, friends or other ways to connect to the student, it would be important to reach out as broadly as possible. Also, if you have a way to find out if the student has enrolled elsewhere, you could contact the new district to provide school records, including the student’s McKinney-Vento status.
If you have made and documented the appropriate attempts to communicate, it would be permissible to disenroll the student. You still would report that student in the McKinney-Vento data submitted to the state.
Not in this situation. Since this student has been in a stable home with her grandparents since 5th grade, she does not qualify as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act. (We are assuming the housing is adequate.) It would not be appropriate for you to provide a verification letter to the university, since the student is not homeless.
However, the local university can do a dependency override for special circumstances for this student. The financial aid office would handle that, working directly with the grandmother and the student to make the determination. You could offer to the grandmother to call the financial aid office to discuss the situation, if the grandmother consents to you providing that support and information.
Students keep their McKinney-Vento eligibility status until the end of the academic year in which they obtain permanent housing. The exact timing of the academic year is defined by your state, but it would include summer school / extended school year services.
It depends. If the child’s living situation with grandparents is fixed, regular, and adequate, then the child would not be considered homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act. However, if the child’s living situation is not fixed, regular, and adequate, the child would both be considered to meet the definition of homelessness.The answer hinges on the living situation. The fact that the grandparent has legal guardianship is not determinative. It may be part of the analysis when considering whether the child’s living situation is fixed and regular, but it is only one of many factors to consider. Even with guardianship, the child may be eligible because the living situation is subject to change, the grandparent’s housing is not be fixed, regular, and adequate, or a similar reason.
Yes and yes. The students lost their housing due to an eviction (as well as substandard conditions–specifically, no electricity). They moved in with grandparents due to the loss of housing. The custody order does not change that. If the children are going to remain with grandparents long-term, and the housing is adequate for them, then the children may no longer be homeless. But the McKinney-Vento eligibility lasts for the duration of the school year.
As for transportation, the McKinney-Vento Act is clear that the district of residence and the district of origin share the responsibility for transportation. If an agreement about how to share costs is not reached, the law requires the costs to be split equally between the two districts.
The recording of RHYA youth in HMIS doesn’t create any eligibility for any service–it is just a data management process, and a way to integrate RYHA data with HUD data that are recorded in HMIS. RHYA, HUD, and our McKinney-Vento education definitions remain different, so our eligibility determinations also will remain different. The RHYA and education definitions are largely the same in practice, which means virtually every youth who meets RHYA’s definition also will meet our education definition, whether or not they are reported in HMIS. It’s not the recording in HMIS that creates the eligibility; it’s the young person’s living situation. Anyone in a shelter is eligible under our education definition and HUD’s definition. But HMIS and the RHYA data system (RHYMIS) are getting integrated.
HUD’s definition remains narrow, so the majority of youth who meet our definition and/or RHYA’s definition still will not meet HUD’s definition. However, any youth who is staying in a RHYA shelter or transitional living program should meet HUD’s definition while they are there (and of course meet the education definition). And youth served through RHYA street outreach programs who are living outside also should meet HUD’s definition (and the education definition).
It does not sound like this family qualifies for McKinney-Vento services. This situation does not sound like a lack of fixed, adequate, and regular housing. Rather, the mother is leaving her housing temporarily to care for a relative. As a result, the child is not staying with others due to a loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. Although temporary, it is a planned change in housing for personal reasons, and the family still maintains their fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
No, this situation does not appear to meet the definition of homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Act. The Act covers children and youth who are “sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” A voluntary assignment with the military is not a reason that is “similar to” loss of housing or economic hardship. The parent made a planned decision, which included the care of their child while he or she is away.
Absolutely. Both transitional housing and motels are considered homeless situations, so using McKinney-Vento funds to serve those students is fine. It’s also fine to serve permanently housed students in a mixed environment with McKinney-Vento eligible students.
Yes, the student should be coded McKinney-Vento, even though she is no longer homeless. The status stays for the remainder of the school year, although the student may not need any of its protections or services. 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(A)(i)(II).
Yes, military families who lost their homes in a hurricane are considering homeless under McKinney-Vento, just like a non-military family who lost their home. The families are staying in a motel due to the lack of an adequate alternative. 42 U.S.C. § 11434a(2).
Definitely yes! The law includes adequacy in two ways. First, the umbrella definition of homeless is “lacking a fixing, regular and adequate nighttime residence.” That means regardless of any other factors, if a residence is lacking in any ONE of those three conditions, the student is homeless. Second, the law includes children and youth living in substandard housing. While the law does not define substandard, the US Department of Education’s Guidance has set some parameters that include housing being dangerous or out of compliance with housing codes (in question A-3, at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/160240ehcyguidance072716updated0317.pdf). Overcrowded housing certainly could be inadequate and/or substandard. It would depend on the specifics of the housing, square footage, etc.
No, the student would not be eligible under McKinney-Vento. The family moved directly from one fixed, regular, and adequate residence, to another fixed, regular, and adequate residence, with no qualifying homeless situation in between. The only caveat would be to examine the adequacy of the “cottage.” For example, some summer cottages don’t have heat, so if winter rolls around and they are still living there, it may be possible the housing is not adequate.
Technically speaking, this depends on the date in your state when the school year officially starts and ends. Most states define the academic year to go from roughly August 1 to July 31, to cover “extended school year” (i.e. summer school) services. That official school year is the “qualifying year” for McKinney-Vento. Here are some examples. (When I use the term “school year” in my comments below, I’m not talking about the first or last day of regular classes. I’m talking about the official, legal school year.)
- Students were homeless last school year, but also became permanently housed last school year: Not MV this school year.
- Students were homeless last school year and homelessness continued into the summer: Probably MV this school year, although it depends on the exact date they found permanent housing. Was that date technically last school year, or this school year?
- Students were not homeless last school year, but became homeless over the summer and remain homeless into the school year: MV this school year.
- Students were not homeless last school year, but became homeless over the summer, and then found housing before the school year started: MV this school year. This is the scenario you suggested— student verified as homeless 7/1, but permanently housed on 8/22. Students who become homeless over the summer have McKinney-Vento rights (see the legal language in the following paragraph).
- Students were not homeless last school year, but became homeless on the first day of this school year, and then found housing a week later: MV this school year.
If you’re really just asking for the purposes of maintaining your data, you could consider the day faculty return to school as the beginning of the school year, or the day classes start. It’s probably not so important what the exact date is, as long as it is a date that make sense. But the exact date could be very important, because you also have to remember that students who lose their housing in the summer have rights, too. The school of origin and enrollment provisions of McKinney-Vento provide that students can remain in the school of origin “in any case in which a family becomes homeless between academic years or during an academic year; and for the remainder of the academic year, if the child or youth becomes permanently housed during an academic year.” Either way, eligibility on its own is only the first step. Then you have to determine whether it’s in the student’s best interest to remain in the school of origin. Of the scenarios above, I think for numbers 4 and 5, there would be a very strong argument that it is not in the student’s best interest to remain in the school of origin. They’re already in permanent housing before the school year even starts (or very shortly after), so they can start the year in their neighborhood, with their new peers and neighbors.
The McKinney-Vento Act only covers children and youth who meet the definition of homelessness. If a youth is unaccompanied, but not homeless, there is no federal requirement to provide support. However, I do think it can be a best practice to check in on their status at least once a year, to be sure that the situation has not changed.
The term “doubled up” does not appear in the McKinney-Vento Act, which explains why you are having trouble finding it! It is a shorthand that some people use to refer to this section of the definition: “children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” The citation is 42 USC 11434A(2)(B)(i). This language appeared in Guidance from the US Department of Education in 1995. It was moved from the Guidance into the statute in 2001, as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. It was not changed by the Every Student Succeeds Act.
A homeschool student who meets the McKinney-Vento definition of “homeless” definitely can access your McKinney-Vento program. The services will be based on her needs, and there’s a lot that won’t apply, since she is homeschooled. But for example, if she needed transportation to a particular activity or test happening at school, you could provide that. You also could provide any supplies or backpacks, etc.
Transitional living programs are specifically included with the McKinney-Vento Act’s definition of homeless and are covered. But it sounds like you are raising a slightly different issue, where people are not necessarily in transitional housing due to a loss of housing, but because it may be a condition of a treatment program or probation. With that wrinkle, we’ll have to give you our standard McKinney-Vento answer to this one: it depends. (See below for full answer.)
Full Question: What are your thoughts on transitional housing from an adult treatment program, or transitional housing that is for previously incarcerated heads of household? We usually talk around and around about the transitional programs that are attached to a treatment program. The transitional program with a priority for previously incarcerated people is kind of head scratcher. From what I can see, there are no time limits, and the program doesn’t officially call itself transitional housing, at least on its website. It is a sober living facility with many rules (no guests,…).
Traditional homeless transitional housing is easy; but it’s these programs that are transitioning people from a program or institution that cause confusion. Clarity please?
Full Answer: Transitional living programs are specifically included with the McKinney-Vento Act’s definition of homeless and are covered. But it sounds like you are raising a slightly different issue, where people are not necessarily in transitional housing due to a loss of housing, but because it may be a condition of a treatment program or probation. With that wrinkle, we’ll have to give you our standard McKinney-Vento answer to this one: it depends.
Remember, the fundamental definition of “homeless” is lacking a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. Sometimes, a treatment program may call housing “transitional,” when it actually is adequate housing where the person can (and likely will) stay indefinitely. That does not sound like McKinney-Vento. In other situations, the housing is more what people think of as “halfway houses”, which are not fixed, regular and adequate. Usually, when housing is conditional in ways that are not usual (sober living, no guests, curfews) it is more likely to meet the definition of homelessness.
Another question to ask is where would the person live if not in that housing? Does the person have the means to live somewhere else, but perhaps this housing is a required step in the treatment program or the conditions of probation? If the person is living in the housing not due to lacking an alternative, but simply because it is court-ordered or part of a treatment program, then it is unlikely a McKinney-Vento situation. However, often the person has nowhere else to go, and if the family had to leave the transitional facility, they would end up living in a car, shelter, motel, or temporarily with others. That’s a McKinney-Vento situation.
If the family moved from one fixed, regular, and adequate residence directly to another fixed, regular, and adequate residence – without a period of homelessness in between – then they would not be considered McKinney-Vento. However, as you consider where the children should enroll at this point in the school year, it’s definitely worth researching any choice, transfer, or other state or local laws or policies that would allow them to continue in their same school until the end of the year.
Yes. Based on this information, the family is eligible. The family has no right to be where they are staying, and in fact it isn’t legal for them to be there – they could be forcibly removed at any time. It also seems likely that under these circumstances utilities have been cut off. If there is no heat, electricity, etc., the situation also would qualify under “inadequate.”
The analysis should focus on the student’s living situation; but the parent’s or guardian’s living situation also can be a factor. With respect to choosing the school of origin versus the local school, the McKinney-Vento Act states that, “The choice regarding placement shall be made regardless of whether the child or youth lives with the homeless parents or has been temporarily placed elsewhere.” That statement addresses situations where parents are experiencing homelessness and have sent their children to stay somewhere else. That “somewhere else” may be a fixed, regular and adequate for the caregiver who lives there, but it is not fixed or regular (and perhaps not adequate) for the child placed there due to homelessness. In the example you shared, a parent was staying in a motel or park and sent her daughter to live with a grandparent. The student is McKinney-Vento eligible. Using the same example, if the child stays with grandmother long-term and grandmother succeeds in getting custody, and grandmother’s housing is fixed, regular and adequate for the student, the student at that point no longer would qualify.
This bottom line comes down to evaluating fixed, regular and adequate from the student’s point of view, and re-evaluating it over time.
This is a case-by-case determination, hinging on what kind of housing actually is being provided and the terms of the housing. In general, try to consider whether the housing is more like a Section 8 voucher (not McKinney-Vento education eligible) or more like transitional housing (definitely McKinney-Vento education eligible). The labels are less important than whether the conditions of the housing can legitimately be considered fixed, regular and adequate under the education definition.
HUD labels often are not helpful, since the HUD definition of “homeless” is much narrower than the education definition, and since localities may implement HUD programs differently. Depending on the specifics, programs labeled as Housing First, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing certainly could qualify as “homeless” for education purposes.
For example, recently, we worked through a situation where a family was provided a voucher for housing in an adequate, independent apartment, scattered site, with no required services or hoops to jump through, and with the understanding that over time (1-2 years) the family gradually would take over the rent. The lease was in the family’s name, and the track record of the program is that families move in and stay permanently. A family in such a program probably would no longer be homeless under the McKinney-Vento education definition, because they would no longer lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. In other cases, HUD programs like Rapid Rehousing and even Permanent Supportive Housing come with conditions and a track record of families having to leave in very short order. Those programs are more likely to meet the McKinney-Vento education definition.
No. Identification depends on the current living situation, and whether it is fixed, regular and adequate. If a family is evicted, for whatever reason, and goes to stay in a motel, sharing the housing of others due to the eviction (loss of housing), a shelter, or another living situation that is not fixed, regular and adequate, the children will qualify under McKinney-Vento.
Yes. Children and youth who are sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason are eligible for McKinney-Vento Act rights and services. There is no time limit on McKinney-Vento eligibility. It depends on the living situation. Many families will remain in doubled-up situations for months or even years as they struggle to find employment and housing, and to address other challenges that may be causing their homelessness. If the shared housing situation becomes fixed, regular and adequate (for example, if the housing is adequate for the number of people living there, and if the two families share rent and lease responsibilities), the children may no longer be McKinney-Vento eligible. Also, the school of origin best interest determination may change over time depending on educational and other factors.
The U.S. Department of Education has provided guidance on this term: “In determining whether a child or youth is living in “substandard housing,” an LEA may consider whether the setting in which the family, child, or youth is living lacks one of the fundamental utilities such as water, electricity, or heat; is infested with vermin or mold; lacks a basic functional part, such as a working kitchen or a working toilet; or may present unreasonable dangers to adults, children, or persons with disabilities. Each city, county, or State may have its own housing codes that further define the kind of housing that may be deemed substandard.” USED Guidance, March 2017, A-3.
It is hard to give a definitive answer for all programs that are called Rapid Rehousing. Whether or not the housing program would meet the McKinney-Vento education subtitle definition of homelessness hinges on what kind of housing actually is being provided, and the terms of the housing. In general, we recommend considering whether the housing is more like a Section 8 voucher (not McKinney-Vento education eligible) or more like transitional housing (definitely McKinney-Vento education eligible). The labels are less important than whether the conditions of the housing can legitimately be considered fixed, regular and adequate under the education definition.
Depending on the specifics, programs labeled as Housing First, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing certainly could qualify as “homeless” for education purposes.
For example, recently, we worked through a situation where a family was provided a voucher for housing in an adequate, independent apartment, scattered site, with no required services or hoops to jump through, and with the understanding that over time (1-2 years) the family gradually would take over the rent. The lease was in the family’s name, and the track record of the program is that families move in and stay permanently. A family in such a program probably would no longer be homeless under the McKinney-Vento education definition, because they would no longer lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence.
In other cases, HUD programs like Rapid Rehousing and even Permanent Supportive Housing come with conditions and a track record of families having to leave in very short order. Those programs are more likely to meet the McKinney-Vento education definition.
As with so many of these challenging situations, it is hard to give a definitive answer without more information. In this situation, we would be considering whether the sudden hospitalization of a parent could be viewed as a reason for sharing housing of others that is “similar to” loss of housing, and therefore qualify for MV.
If there were a custody agreement, he probably wouldn’t be McKinney-Vento eligible, because he would have fixed, regular residence (FRA) with his dad. If there was a no-visitation order, then he’d definitely be McKinney-Vento, because a court has found that dad is not safe for him, and he should not be there.
In this case, since there appears not to be a no-visitation order, if dad has FRA for the son, the student probably is not McKinney-Vento eligible. But depending on more information, including the conditions of dad’s living situation (is it FRA?), that determination could change.
This would follow the same process as any McKinney-Vento scenario where if there is a concern about eligibility. The virtual school liaison could provide the parent with written notice that they are making a determination of ineligibility unless the parent will meet with the local liaison. If the parent still refuses to meet, then they could provide written notice of ineligibility and information about how to appeal through the dispute process. The student must be allowed to continue in the virtual school until the dispute reaches its final resolution.
Yes and yes. Based on the information provided, the family meets the definition of homeless in the McKinney-Vento Act because they do not have a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; this definition specifically includes children and youth who are living in trailers and campgrounds “due to lack of adequate alternative accommodations.”
The student therefore has the right to remain in her school of origin, if it is in her best interest. Assuming this is the case, the district must provide transportation to and from the school of origin, per the McKinney-Vento Act requirements. Since she will be crossing school district boundaries, your district and the district in which the family is camping must apportion cost and responsibility; in the case that there is a disagreement, the two districts are required to split the costs.
No. As long as the children are still in the custody of the state, they are considered to be in foster care, and therefore not homeless. Under the Fostering Connections Act, “foster care” means 24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the child welfare agency has placement and care responsibility. This includes, but is not limited to, placements in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, child care institutions, and pre-adoptive homes. A child is in foster care in accordance with this definition regardless of whether the foster care facility is licensed and payments are made by the State, Tribal or local agency for the care of the child, whether adoption subsidy payments are being made prior to the finalization of an adoption, or whether there is Federal matching of any payments that are made. (45 C.F.R. §1355.20(a)). The Title I provisions in ESSA that provide children in foster care with educational rights, including the right to remain in the school of origin, would apply to the children in your example.
The mere fact of the father having educational rights does not equate to the student having a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. I’d want to know more about the history of the student’s relationship with the father, and the extent to which the living situation is fixed, regular and adequate. For example, if the student has had little to no relationship with the father, and has not lived with the father much or for long, I’d be more inclined to see this as a McKinney-Vento situation – particularly if the father has not had any custody for the student for a while. Also, if the father himself does not have a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, the student would meet the homeless definition.
Automatic eligibility for school meals is part of the Russell School Lunch Act. That law provides continued eligibility for McKinney-Vento students for the rest of the school year and into the first 30 days of the next school year. However, parents do have the right to refuse school meals. This situation is tricky because the student has returned to live with his parents. He does not meet the unaccompanied youth definition any longer. He’s still eligible for all McKinney-Vento services for the rest of the school year, and he’s eligible for school meals for the rest of the year. But since he is back in the physical custody of his parents, his parents have rights, too. They can refuse school meals. McKinney-Vento provides some special independence for unaccompanied youth. But once the youth is back with parents, the youth is not unaccompanied, so regular parental rights kick back in.
The term “kinship care” is used in many different ways, so it depends on the nature of the placement. If a child welfare agency places a child in kinship care, the child is considered to be in foster care, and would not be McKinney-Vento eligible (but would be eligible for ESSA’s protections for children in foster care). However, the way you describe this “kinship care” document, it sounds like a power of attorney a parent might sign over to another person who is caring for their child temporarily. In that case, the document itself isn’t the issue—the question would be whether the parent or child lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. If the parent is homeless and is placing her child with someone else, the child would be McKinney-Vento eligible. If the kinship care arrangement itself is a homeless situation, the child would be McKinney-Vento eligible.
No, based on the information that you provided. It appears the family moved directly from one fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence to another fixed, regular, and adequate residence. Therefore, they never experienced homelessness, and would not be eligible for the McKinney-Vento Act’s protections and services. The answer would be different if there were any extenuating factors that might change the analysis – for example, if the new residence is not fixed, regular, and adequate, or if the family stayed in a homeless situation in between the two residences.