Title I

No. The Title I homeless set-aside requires the provision of comparable services. 20 U.S.C. 6313(c)(3) The homeless set-aside is required of all LEAs that get Title IA funds. Comparable services are required as part of that set-aside. Additional set-aside funds can be used for a variety of other services, including for transportation and the liaison.

The Department of Education’s Guidance helps address this:

“M-5. In an LEA with Title I and non-Title I schools, are homeless children and youths who attend non-Title I schools eligible to receive Title I, Part A services?
Yes. Under section 1113(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, an LEA must reserve sufficient Title I funds to provide services to homeless students who attend non-Title I schools that are comparable to those provided to students in Title I schools.
These services may include providing educationally related support services to children in shelters and other locations where homeless children live. Services should be provided to assist homeless students to effectively take advantage of educational opportunities.
In addition to serving homeless children and youths who attend non-Title I schools, as described in question M-4, the homeless set-aside may be used to provide services to homeless students in Title I schools that are not ordinarily provided to other Title I students.”

Yes, as long as 1) the services are reasonable and necessary to assist the student to take advantage of educational opportunities; and 2) Title I, Part A funds are used as a last resort when funds or services are not available from other public or private sources.

Here is a link to the part of the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance, which specifically mentions both counseling and dental services as allowable expenditures.

For McKinney-Vento funds, yes. This expense would fall under allowable use (16) in the law:

“(16) The provision of other extraordinary or emergency assistance needed to enable homeless children and youths to attend school and participate fully in school activities.”

For Title I funds, the question is whether this is an “educational opportunity.” Arguably, if it is a school activity, it is an educational opportunity. Sports have lots of benefits related to attendance, academic achievement, and high school graduation. The Guidance from USED on this is:

“Two principles govern the use of Title I, Part A funds to provide such services to homeless students. First, the services must be reasonable and necessary to assist homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities. (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(A); 2 CFR § 200.403(a)). Second, Title I, Part A funds must be used only as a last resort when funds or services are not available from other public or private sources….”

The U.S. Department of Education’s guidance states that the two general principles for using Title IA funds for homeless students are:

Services must be reasonable and necessary to enable homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities.
Funds must be used as a last resort when services are not reasonably available from another public or private source.

Unfortunately, it seems this would not be allowable, since college supplies would not be necessary to take advantage of an educational opportunity offered by the local educational agency.

The U.S. Department of Education’s guidance states that the two general principles for using Title IA funds for homeless students are:

Services must be reasonable and necessary to enable homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities.
Funds must be used as a last resort when services are not reasonably available from another public or private source.

There is a strong argument that the student could not attend school unless she had child care, and that the diapers and car seat might be necessary for her baby to participate in child care. You’d also need to ensure that the diapers/car seat are not “reasonably” available from another public or private source. It might be harder to make the case for the crib/mattress.

This would be an allowable use of Title I funds only if the summer programs are academic in nature and somehow affiliated with the LEA such that the LEA awards credit for the program, or the program is an approved provider of Extended School Year services, or something similar. The US Department of Education (ED) frowns upon the use of Title I funds to pay outside agencies unless there is some clear connection to a school activity, academic progress, etc. For example, if you have a student who is going to be retained unless the student attends summer school, and there is no public summer school option that works for the student, then you likely have a great argument to use Title I funds to pay a private summer school program.

Here is the general guiding language on the use of Title I funds, from ED’s Education for Homeless Children and Youth guidance:

“Two principles govern the use of Title I, Part A funds to provide such services to homeless students. First, the services must be reasonable and necessary to assist homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities. (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(A); 2 CFR § 200.403(a)). Second, Title I, Part A funds must be used only as a last resort when funds or services are not available from other public or private sources, such as the USDA’s National School Lunch Program and Breakfast Program, public health clinics, or local discretionary funds (sometimes provided by the PTA) used to provide similar services for economically disadvantaged students generally.”

So for an external summer school, the likely key questions for Title I are: 1) whether the summer school assists the homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities in some specific way (not just as in, generally, summer school is academically helpful for students experiencing homelessness–but rather: is there something about this student’s particular educational situation that makes summer school especially important?); and 2) whether there is a free option available.

Here are a few questions to consider:

Is there a public summer school program available?
If so, are there some particular barriers related to homelessness that prevent the student from participating in that public program?
Does the student need to attend summer school to advance to the next grade?
Will the student be accruing credits recognized by the LEA/SEA at the summer school?
Is the summer school primarily academic in nature?

McKinney-Vento subgrant funds are much more flexible. There are a few different allowable uses you could fit this under, primarily–

“(8) The provision for homeless children and youths of before- and after-school, mentoring, and summer programs in which a teacher or other qualified individual provides tutoring, homework assistance, and supervision of educational activities.” 42 U.S.C. 11433(d)(8).

As you can see, there has to be some educational component, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be the primary component.

Some other allowable uses of McKinney-Vento funds that could fit:

“(1) The provision of tutoring, supplemental instruction, and enriched educational services that are linked to the achievement of the same challenging State academic standards as the State establishes for other children and youths.”

“(6) The provision of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs, not otherwise provided through Federal, State, or local funding, for preschool-aged homeless children. (If the children are preschool aged.)”

“(7) The provision of services and assistance to attract, engage, and retain homeless children and youths, particularly homeless children and youths who are not enrolled in school, in public school programs and services provided to nonhomeless children and youths. (Summer school certainly is an engagement and retention strategy.)”

If a student is identified as experiencing homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Act this school year, and later in the year is taken into child welfare custody and put in foster care, the district can continue serving the student under McKinney-Vento for the rest of this school year, like any other previously McKinney-Vento student. If the student is still in foster care next school year, the student must be served under the Title I foster care provision next year.

Since the Title I foster care provisions require local plans to provide transportation to the school of origin, your district and local child welfare agency may elect to serve the student under the Title I foster care provisions. The bottom line under both the McKinney-Vento Act and Title I is that the student must be allowed to continue in the school of origin, if in the student’s best interest. Local agreements regarding payment for transportation may vary.

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, all local educational agencies (LEAs) that receive Title I, Part A funds are required to reserve funds for students experiencing homelessness. 20 U.S.C. § 6313(c)(3)(A). Even if the LEA has not identified McKinney-Vento students in the past, virtually no LEA (charter or otherwise) can be 100% sure that they will never have a student experience homelessness in the coming year. The liaison should be involved in determining the amount and uses of the set-aside as part of the LEA’s Title I, Part A plan. (See Question M-8 of the U.S. Department of Education’s Guidance, text provided below.)

Once the amount and categorical uses of the set-aside are defined in the Title plan, the liaison should be able to access the funds freely for any use that is in-line with the plan. It seems inappropriate for the fiscal manager to deny any requests that are in-line with the Title I Part A plan. The liaison will have a much better understanding than the fiscal manager of the breadth of needs of McKinney-Vento students and is in a much better position to prioritize the uses of funds based on the severity of those needs. While each district can have its own policy on how funds are accessed and used, the liaison absolutely needs to be the driver of funding that serves McKinney-Vento students, including Title I funding.

“M-8. What is an LEA required to include in its Title I, Part A plan regarding services for homeless students?

Under section 1112(b)(6) of the ESEA, an LEA must describe in its Title I, Part A plan the services it will provide homeless children and youths, including services provided with funds reserved under section 1113(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, to support the enrollment, attendance, and success of these children and youths. An LEA’s Title I, Part A application also should include a description of the method used for determining the amount reserved, whether by a needs assessment or some other method (e.g., past homeless student enrollment and support service cost data), and how the liaison was consulted or involved in determining the set-aside.”

No. As we examined the text of the law, the issue we were trying to resolve was the meaning of the phrase “in the local educational agency.” The set-aside language says the set-aside is for: “homeless children and youths, including providing educationally related support services to children in shelters and other locations where children may live;” and that the amount should be “determined based on a needs assessment of homeless children and youths in the local educational agency, taking into consideration the number and needs of homeless children and youths in the local educational agency.” Our question was: does the phrase “homeless children and youths in the local educational agency” mean only those attending public schools? Or would it include any homeless children and youth physically in the LEA and being served by the LEA in any form (including by Title I equitable participation funds that go to private schools)? We have come to the conclusion that homeless students attending non-public schools are not in the LEA but rather served by the LEA. If Congress had meant to say “served by”, they could have said that. The distinction is important and not one to interpret without deliberate consideration. That distinction means the set-aside cannot be used for private school students. Other Title I funds certainly could be used for non-public school students, including those who are homeless. The private school or equitable participation reservation absolutely could be used for that. But not the set-aside. Our conclusion is that these are two different Title I “pots” for two different purposes – one for public (the homeless set-aside) and one for private/non public. Our colleagues at NCHE came to the same conclusion.

Absolutely! It is clear in the Title I law and also US Department of Education’s Guidance (Question M-10). For convenience, we provide the Guidance answer below.

“M-10. May Title I, Part A funds reserved under section 1113(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA be used to fund the local liaison position?

Yes. Title I, Part A homeless set-aside funds may be used to fund all or part of the homeless liaison’s salary even if that person has no Title I duties. (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(C)(ii)(II)). In larger districts with significant numbers of identified homeless students enrolled, an LEA may also use Title I funds to support, as necessary, additional staff carrying out the required duties of the local liaison.”

The short answer is yes, both McKinney-Vento funds, and the Title I Part A homeless set aside funds, may be used for this purpose.

The U.S. Department of Education guidance states that Title I Part A set aside funds may be used for homeless students if the services are “reasonable and necessary to assist homeless students to take advantage of educational opportunities.”

Credit recovery certainly fits that description.

Also, two authorized activities in the McKinney-Vento Act speak to this issue:

The provision of tutoring, supplemental instruction, and enriched educational services that are linked to the achievement of the same challenging State academic standards as the State establishes for other children and youths. 42 U.S.C. 11433(d)(1).
The provision of services and assistance to attract, engage, and retain homeless children and youths, particularly homeless children and youths who are not enrolled in school, in public school programs and services provided to non homeless children and youths. 42 U.S.C. 11433(d)(7).

Lastly, ESSA put new emphasis on credit recovery by requiring States to have “procedures to identify and remove barriers that prevent students from receiving appropriate credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior school, in accordance with State, local, and school policies.” 11432(g)(1)(F)(ii). School district liaisons are required to implement these procedures. 11432(g)(6)(A)(x).

Although this provision does not speak directly to the situation raised in your question—because the ESSA provision deals with credits for courses fully or partially completed—it reflects a strong Congressional policy in support of assistance with credit recovery.

This requirement is found in the language of the law itself, Section 1113(c)(3)(A)(i) of Title I, Part A.

A recent Congressional Research Service memo helps clarify this provision by stating that “current ESEA statutory language directs that the reservation of funds for homeless children be made based on the total amount of Title I-A funding provided to the LEA.” The memo goes on to specify:

“[T]he ordinary meaning of the words in the statute, together with the available legislative history of ESSA, would seem to support the view that Congress had unambiguously directed that both reservations should be calculated independently based on the entire amount allocated to an LEA.… For example, if $100,000 were allocated to an LEA under Title I-A of the ESEA, then both the reservation of funds for homeless children under Section 1113 and the reservation of funds for equitable participation under Section 1117 would be based on that $100,000 total.”

Here is the statutory language:

(3) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agency shall reserve such funds as are necessary under this part, determined in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C), to provide services comparable to those provided to children in schools funded under this part to serve—

(i) homeless children and youths, including providing educationally related support services to children in shelters and other locations where children may live;

(ii) children in local institutions for neglected children; and

(iii) if appropriate, children in local institutions for delinquent children, and neglected or delinquent children in community day programs.

(B) METHOD OF DETERMINATION.—The share of funds determined under subparagraph (A)shall be determined—

(i) based on the total allocation received by the local educational agency; and

(ii) prior to any allowable expenditures or transfers by the local educational agency.

(C) HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTHS.—Funds reserved under subparagraph (A)(i) may be—

(i) determined based on a needs assessment of homeless children and youths in the local educational agency, taking into consideration the number and needs of homeless children and youths in the local educational agency, and which needs assessment may be the same needs assessment as conducted under section 723(b)(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11433(b)(1)); and

(ii) used to provide homeless children and youths with services not ordinarily provided to other students under this part, including providing—

(I) funding for the liaison designated pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)); and

(II) transportation pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii)).

All LEAs that receive Title I, Part A funds must reserve funds for homeless children and youth, including those LEAs where every campus is a Title I campus.

This is clear from the fact that the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) eliminated the previous limitation on the requirement to reserve funds. The ESSA amendment to the language is as follows:

“(c) ALLOCATIONS … (3) RESERVATION OF FUNDS. (A) IN GENERAL.– A local educational agency shall reserve such funds as are necessary under this part, determined in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C), to provide services comparable to those provided to children in schools funded under this part to serve— (i) homeless children and youths who do not attend participating schools, including providing educationally related support services to children in shelters and other locations where children may live.” 20 U.S.C. §6313(c)(3)(A).

Prior to ESSA, the phrase “who do not attend participating schools” limited the requirement to reserve Title I Part A funds for homeless children and youth only to those LEAs that had non-Title I schools.

ESSA deleted the phrase “who do not attend participating schools.” This was a substantive change in the law, reflecting Congress’s intent to eliminate the restriction on the application of the requirement to LEAs that have non-Title I schools. Without this limitation, all LEAs that receive Title I, Part A are required to reserve such funds as are necessary to provide homeless children and youth with services comparable to those provided to children in schools funded under Title Part A.

We also would note that the phrase “as are necessary” modifies the phrase “such funds”; it does not limit the actual requirement to reserve funds. All LEAs must reserve funds for homeless children and youth, based on the total allocation and prior to any allowable expenditures and transfers. The amount of the funds reserved must be “necessary” to provide services comparable to those provided to children in schools funded under this part.

Lastly, the word “comparable” does not mean “the same as.” “Comparable” is not defined in the statute, and if a term is not expressly defined in a statute, the term is given its ordinary, dictionary definition. The dictionary definition of “comparable” is “similar or about the same” or “of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison.”

Therefore, the mere fact that homeless children and youth attend a Title I school does not mean that they are receiving comparable services under Title I Part A. In fact, the statute specifically authorizes the reserved Title I Part A funds to be used for “services not ordinarily provided to other students under this part.”

A summary of all of the homelessness-related provisions in Title I Part A may be downloaded here.

Yes. Now that ESSA’s Title I amendments are in effect, all LEAs that receive Title I, Part A funds must reserve funds for students experiencing homelessness. Even if the LEA has not identified McKinney-Vento students in the past, virtually no LEA (charter or otherwise) can be 100% sure that they will never have a student experience homelessness in the coming year. Domestic violence, natural disasters, family conflict – all sorts of things can come up in the upcoming school year that could result in student homelessness. In addition, it’s important to look at liaison capacity and what is being done in the school/LEA to identify McKinney-Vento students. The fact that the school has not yet identified a McKinney-Vento student does not necessarily mean they’ve never had one, or that they don’t have several right now. The school may not have identified students experiencing homelessness due to insufficient identification and outreach activities. Our Guidelines for Designating LEA-Level and Building-Level McKinney-Vento Liaisons tool can help LEAs evaluate liaison capacity to determine if Title I funds should be directed to increasing that person’s capacity, which should help improve identification.

Therefore, LEAs should set aside some Title I, Part A funds regardless, possibly to increase liaison capacity, or at least because you never know when a new student will come in, and/or when an unanticipated need will come up.

The U.S. Department of Education has some good guidance on calculating the amount of the Title I, Part A set-aside. Specifically, the Department states that LEA set-aside amounts may be determined based on a needs assessment that reviews homeless student enrollment averages and trends over 2-3 years, and multiplies by the average per-pupil cost of providing Title I services. The guidance is available here.

We recommend that formula as a floor, not a ceiling – basically, a rough starting point that could be fleshed out depending on other local factors, such as the need to increase staff time to better identify students and to meet the ESSA requirement that the liaison is “able to carry out” his or her McKinney-Vento duties.

The Department also recommends that the needs of McKinney-Vento students be reviewed at least twice per school year, and that each year’s set-aside include an evaluation of the effectiveness of past activities in accomplishing the goals of both Title I and McKinney-Vento for individual students and the overall programs.

Absolutely. Providing transportation eliminates a barrier to attendance in preschool for these children. The state is required to have procedures that “ensure that— (i) homeless children have access to public preschool programs, administered by the State educational agency or local educational agency, as provided to other children in the State.” 42 USC §11432(g)(1)(F)(i). By using Title I funds for this transportation, you are adopting a procedure to ensure that children can access your LEA pre-K program. Title I specifically allows the set-aside to be used for “services not ordinarily provided to other students.”

There is no problem with this, as long as the transportation provided by the shelter is cost-effective. McKinney-Vento allows the LEA to provide or arrange transportation, thereby giving the LEA some discretion to choose the method of transportation, as long as it is appropriate. In this case, if the shelter has the capacity to provide appropriate and cost-effective transportation, the use of Title I funds would be allowable in the same way as it would be to reimburse a parent or provide a school bus. As many communities are struggling with school bus and driver shortages, working with the shelter in this way might make excellent sense.

The only concern here would be if the shelter transportation stigmatizes the children. For example, we have heard horrible stories about children being driven to school in vans with the name of a shelter in giant letters on the side. This can lead to severe stigma and discrimination. It is important to keep that in mind and ensure the transportation avoids stigma.

Yes, that should be allowable, as long as the transportation provided by the shelter is cost-effective. McKinney-Vento allows the LEA to provide or arrange transportation, thereby giving the LEA some discretion to choose the method of transportation, as long as it is appropriate. In this case, if the shelter has the capacity to provide appropriate and cost-effective transportation, the use of Title I funds would be allowable in the same way as it would be to reimburse a parent or provide a school bus. Many areas are struggling with school bus and driver shortages, so this might make excellent sense.

It probably goes without saying, but if the shelter cost is significantly more expensive than other available methods, that likely would be a red flag for an auditor.

A concern to keep in mind would be to ensure the shelter transportation does not stigmatize the children. One of our Board members has horrible stories about being driven to high school in a van that had the name of her shelter in giant letters on the side. Due to that shelter van, everyone knew she lived in the shelter, and she felt a lot of stigma and discrimination as a result. So I would keep that in mind and ensure the transportation avoids stigma.

Yes, with a couple of caveats. Normally, to calculate the excess cost, you’re looking at the difference between the transportation being provided to the McKinney-Vento student and what the district typically would provide other students. So in this case, since the district provides no transportation at all, the entire cost would be excess.

Two caveats:

Make sure the student isn’t entitled to transportation for some other reason, such as pursuant to an IEP
The district cannot use its entire set-aside to pay for transportation. The set-aside must provide McKinney-Vento students with services comparable to those provided to other Title I students.

So the set-aside must provide those other, comparable services first (e.g. tutoring or graduation coaching for your high schoolers, etc.), and then can be used to cover excess transportation costs with the money left over. Ultimately, this particular district might need to increase its Title IA set-aside amount if it’s going to dip into it significantly to cover transportation costs.

Can an LEA reserve Title I-A funds only for transportation and/or only for the liaison, and reserve nothing for comparable services?

Can districts use their Title I homeless set-aside to pay for counseling sessions and dental services for a homeless student?

Are insurance fees for school activities an allowable expense using McKinney-Vento or Title I funds?

If a student just graduated as a senior from our school, can we use Title IA funds to help him/her buy supplies for college?

Is it allowable to use Title IA funds to buy things like diapers, a car seat, and a crib/mattress for a pregnant McKinney-Vento student?

Can we use Title I funds to pay for summer programs that are not administered by the LEA/SEA? How about McKinney-Vento subgrant funds?

When it comes to student needs under the umbrella of Title I services, can the fiscal manager deny requests for the McKinney-Vento students? Can the fiscal manager have the students pay for pencils, or deny orders of school supplies?

Can Title IA homeless set-aside funds be used to support McKinney-Vento students in private schools?

Can the school district homeless liaison be paid out of Title I Set Aside Funds?

Can McKinney-Vento set-aside funds be used to pay for credit recovery for a MV student? Not to “get ahead,” but only for the purposes of catching up with classes that the student did not pass earlier.

Are all LEAs that receive Title I required to reserve set-aside funds for homeless students? Or are only those that have a mix of Title I and non-Title I campuses required to do so, although all LEAS may reserve such funds if they choose to?

Must charter schools set aside Title I, Part A funds for McKinney-Vento students even if they have not identified any students experiencing homelessness in the previous years?

Do you have a formula that districts could use to assist them in determining what their set-aside amounts should be for Title 1A?

Can we use Title I set-aside funds to transport children from our domestic violence shelter to our preschool program? We do not typically provide transportation to preschool, but these children will not attend if we cannot provide transportation.

Can a district use Title IA funds to reimburse a shelter for the cost of transportation for McKinney-Vento students?