University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An ecological mixed-methods analysis of homeless students’ school experience at the state, district, and school levels

(USC Thesis Other)

An ecological mixed-methods analysis of homeless students’ school experience at the state, district, and school levels

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

An Ecological Mixed-Methods Analysis of Homeless Students’ School Experience at the State,
District, and School Levels

By
Hadass Moore, MSW
May 2018 Degree Conferral
Doctor of Philosophy (SOCIAL WORK)
University of Southern California

Dissertation Guidance Committee:
Ron Avi Astor, PhD (Chair)
Julie Marsh, PhD
Suzanne Wenzel, PhD
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL

ii

This work is dedicated to my roots and wings, Dalia (Imma), Steven (Abba), Mickey, and
Jonathan,
To anyone in search of a home,
And to Ben —
My home.

In loving memory of my grandmother Nadra Rachamim

iii
Acknowledgments
“ עד / י ןיאמ ,תאב ןאלו תא / ה ךלוה / ,ת ינפלו ימ תא / ה דיתע / ה ןתיל ןיד ןובשחו ” ( תכסמ תובא , קרפ ג ’ , הנשמ א ’ )
“Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a
judgement and accounting. ” (Pirkei Avot, Chapters of The Fathers, Chapter 3, Mishna Aleph)
Know from where you came.
Arriving to this dissertation was not a goal I achieved by myself. I never walked alone in
this path, and I would like to try to thank all those who contributed to this work.
To my mother and soulmate, Dr. Dalia Rachman-Moore—being your daughter is the
greatest privilege of my life. You have been my compass in this process while providing
feedback, support, and advice. I would not have been able to make it without you. Thank you for
the endless river of love, I love you. To my father, Steven Moore, the rock star, for your undying
faith in me and countless hours of reading my work. Your dedication to others throughout your
life has been a true source of inspiration. No matter where I am, I know you will always be there
for me. I love you, Abba. To my brother, Mickey Moore, for always grounding me and being my
rock when I needed you most to pull through. To my wonderful cousins, aunts, and uncles, for
always watching my back, even when 10,000 miles away. I am forever grateful for growing up
in this most caring environment and for your support and belief in me.
To the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Case Western Reserve University, and the
University of Southern California. To the amazing faculty and staff at USC who supported me
throughout this journey, notably, Dr. Eric Rice, for encouraging my work and providing the
space to pursue it; Dr. Concepcion Barrio, for challenging me to broaden my horizons and
explore new avenues; and Dr. Benjamin Henwood, for your valuable insights and feedback. To
Dr. Rym Kaki, for creating a safe place to explore questions about the meaning of home; to
iv
Malinda Sampson for your guidance and care since I first entered the doctoral program; to Dr.
Michael Hurlburt for his support and leadership; and to Eric Lindberg, for your careful and
always thoughtful formatting and editing work.
To my unofficial mentors, without whom this dissertation would not have been
completed. To Dr. Rami Benbenishty, for your support, help and guidance. Since the day I
started my educational path as a social worker, you were there (in the form of your “Attending
and exploring in the helping interview” book). I could never imagine back then that one day I
would have the honor of working with you and directly learning from you. I truly appreciate
your values and dedication to others, which are captured in everything that you do. Thank you
from the bottom of my heart for your ongoing insights, feedback, and encouragement. To Dr.
Miriam Schiff, for supporting me then and now, your mentorship and support means the world.
To Dr. Sharon Milligan for allowing me to dream, and to Soad Mansour for her guidance and
support.
To my colleagues and friends I have met and worked with during the program. To
Gordon Capp, for your friendship, wisdom, insights, and immense contribution to this work. To
Dr. Ruth Berkowitz, for embarking on the adventure of our collaboration, I have gained a
colleague and a friend. To Dr. Robin Petering, for taking me into your project and under your
wing, I continue to learn from you every day. To Jeremy Gibbs, for your friendship (my first
American friend), guidance, and support through good and bad. To Cary Klemmer, for
challenging me to think wider and deeper. To Josh Schuschke, for being my teacher and friend
and for encouraging me to be a better person. To Dr. Melissa Bird, for inspiring me to follow my
heart.
v
To Dr. Michalle Mor Barak and Ysrael Kanot, for welcoming me into this country and
into your family with open arms, and for supporting me in my growth and development. This
journey would not have been the same without you. To the Astor-Locke family—Sheva, Maya,
Roee, and Shachar—for opening your home to me, your joy and care are contagious and have
been a great source of light. To Chris McKee, for reminding me the power of being vulnerable.
To Kristen and Josh Sandler, for having faith in me when I needed it the most and for reminding
me that kindness and friendship are always the solution. To Taco Poulsen for your guidance and
love. To Michael Benita, for endless hours of a very meaningful journey, my deepest gratitude
for the courage to take this path with me.
A huge gratitude to my tribe and all my friends who supported me throughout this
journey, notably, Nir, Ayelet, Micha, Liran, Lior Y., Lior I., Uriah, Moran, Roi, Leandro, Rotem,
Nitzan, Arnona, Artur, and Anita. Especially, I want to thank the following people. To Alona
Korman, for always being a role model to humanity, and for your friendship and faith in me.
Thank you for your constant support through the ups and downs of my academic career. To
Tamar Gil, for your wisdom, creativity, encouragement, and friendship before and during this
journey, you inspire me with your work and perspective. To Natalie Staszewski Gabay, for
teaching me about the important things in life—your confidence in me has enhanced my ability
to get through it all. To Asaf Gabay, for your kind heart and for always putting things in
perspective. To Itamar Gofershtein for his friendship and for teaching me through example how
to follow dreams. To Ori Fried for being the light for me and so many. To Eden Uliel, for being
the epitome of what is good and right in this world and for providing daily support,
encouragement, and guidance through good and bad times, despite the distance. I am forever
thankful for our friendship. To Jonathan Lior, my “guardian angel.” I can’t even remember my
vi
life without you. I am humbled by your friendship and presence in my life. Knowing you are
there, I am never alone, and that has helped me stay strong and finish this work.
To Yael Findler—I will never be able to thank you enough. You were my first home and
you filled it with laughter, wisdom, and love. I know that so much of this work is thanks to you. I
continue to grow with you, as our friendship thrives. I never had a sister, but I feel that I do now.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to acknowledge and thank my dissertation
committee members. To Dr. Julie Marsh, for your insights, feedback, and encouragement. I have
learned so much from you and from your work. When I first entered your class as the only social
work student, I never expected it to be one of the most important experiences in my doctoral
journey. I got to experience firsthand your commitment to the intellect alongside the values of
justice and equality, through a facilitation of kindness and support. I feel very lucky that you
were there to support and guide me through my qualifying exam and dissertation. Thank you for
your valuable input and dedication to see this through; it would not have been the same without
your help.
To Dr. Suzanne Wenzel, whose work and passion has been inspiring me since the first
day of the program. It is truly a privilege working with you and learning from you. Thank you,
not only for your time and extreme patience, but for your intellectual contributions to my
development as a scholar and for supporting me and my path far beyond my qualifying exam and
this dissertation. Your encouragement, feedback and wisdom gave me the strength to pursue this
dissertation work. Thank you for your inspiring work in the local, national, and international
arenas while promoting justice, always through thoughtful and respectful lenses. I continue to
learn from you and from your work.
vii
Most of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my chair, my mentor, and so
much more, Dr. Ron Avi Astor. To me, you and your work encompass the essence of social
work, and you are the utmost source of inspiration. Being your student and having the privilege
of working with you has been one of the greatest honors of my life. Thank you for challenging
me, for pushing me outside of my comfort zone, for believing in me and in my work, for
genuinely caring, and for your guidance, encouragement, and feedback, which gave me the
strength and courage to pursue this work. The things I have learned from you go far beyond
academia, as you promoted growth in so many areas in my life. I learned (and continue to learn)
from your wisdom and experience about justice, equity, human rights, community, art, and
identity. I am inspired by the way these values are manifested in any communication and how
they come to fruition in your theoretical, intellectual, practical, and uncompromising scientific
work. The integration of all those aspects, while never losing sight of the ultimate goal of
promoting macro and micro interventions to better the lives of others, is the greatest thing I have
learned and aspire to do. Because words cannot express my true feelings, I will simply say, thank
you for being you. You make this world a better place. Thank you for giving me everything I
need to carry in my travel bag for the next step. You are, and forever will be, one of the most
important people in my life.
Where you are going.
To Ben. My love. Thank you for the huge sacrifices you made for me to be able to
complete this work. Your support, encouragement, faith, love, and joy are the most precious gifts
I ever received. You inspire me, and you make my life so much better than I could ever have
dreamt of. Ben, I am in awe of you. You will always be the place I am going to. I love you, and I
am excited about the road ahead.
viii
And before whom you are destined to give a judgement and accounting.
To the districts, schools, teachers, principals, staff members, and students who
participated in this study—to you, I am accountable.
To all the individuals and families I had the honor of working with through my
professional path, I thank you for the opportunity to walk with you in your journey—to you, I am
accountable.
To anyone in search of a home, for whatever it may mean to you—to you- I am
accountable.
To all the children, youth, and families in situations of homelessness, refuge and asylum
seeking, I pledge that my life’s work is devoted to you.

ix
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................. xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Research about Students Experiencing Homelessness: Background and Exploration
of Historical Research Trends ................................................................................................... 6
Homeless Students in California ............................................................................................. 11
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 12
Ecological Systems Theory............................................................................................... 13
Conceptual Heuristic Model of Astor and Benbenishty ................................................... 13
Social Developmental Model ............................................................................................ 14
Risk Amplification and Abatement Model ....................................................................... 14
Conceptual Model ................................................................................................................... 15
Deconstructing the Conceptual Model .................................................................................... 16
Homelessness .................................................................................................................... 16
Role of Schools and School Location ............................................................................... 17
Nestedness of Schools....................................................................................................... 17
School Climate .................................................................................................................. 17
Victimization among Homeless Youth ............................................................................. 18
Dissertation Structure.............................................................................................................. 19
References ............................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2 (Study 1): A Statewide Representative Study of School-Based Victimization,
Discriminatory Bullying, and Weapon Involvement among Homeless and Nonhomeless Youth 31
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 31
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 32
Student Homelessness: Definition and Characteristics ..................................................... 35
Homeless Youth and Multiple Types of Victimization .................................................... 36
School Safety: Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral Victimization, and Weapon
Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 38
School as a Context for School Violence among Homeless Youth .................................. 40
Current Study .................................................................................................................... 41
Methods................................................................................................................................... 42
Data and Procedures ......................................................................................................... 42
Measurements ................................................................................................................... 43
Analysis............................................................................................................................. 45
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Discriminatory Bullying ................................................................................................... 48
Behavioral Victimization .................................................................................................. 49
Weapon Involvement ........................................................................................................ 50
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 52
Limitations and Future Research ...................................................................................... 59
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 60
References ............................................................................................................................... 61
x
Chapter 3 (Study 2): Role of School Climate in Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral
Victimization, and Weapon Involvement among Homeless and Nonhomeless Students: An
Individual- and School-Level Analysis ........................................................................................ 75
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 75
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 77
Role of Schools and Education Policies for School-Attending Homeless Youth ............ 79
School Climate and Victimization: School as a Context for Homeless Students ............. 81
Beyond the Individual: Understanding the School Context for Homeless Students ........ 83
Current Study .................................................................................................................... 85
Methods................................................................................................................................... 86
Individual Level ................................................................................................................ 87
School Level ..................................................................................................................... 91
Analysis............................................................................................................................. 92
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 94
Individual Level ................................................................................................................ 94
School Level ..................................................................................................................... 99
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 104
School Climate, Discriminatory Bullying, and Behavioral Victimization ..................... 106
School Climate and Weapon Involvement ..................................................................... 109
Differences between Individual and School Levels........................................................ 112
Strengths and Limitations ............................................................................................... 112
Implications and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 114
References ............................................................................................................................. 116
Chapter 4 (Study 3): School 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 ................................................................................................................. 130
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 130
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 131
Homelessness in Schools through a District, School, and Community Contextual Lens134
Theoretical Framework: Nestedness of Homeless Students in Multiple Contexts ......... 137
Method .................................................................................................................................. 139
Research Design and Sample .......................................................................................... 140
Sampling, Participants, and Procedures .......................................................................... 141
Data Collection Phases ................................................................................................... 143
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 146
Results ................................................................................................................................... 147
Theme 1: Identification, Definition, and Awareness of Homeless Students .................. 148
Theme 2: School Experience of Homeless Students from Diverse Socioecological and
Organizational Perspectives ............................................................................................ 153
Theme 3: Intersection of Homelessness and Immigration and Undocumented Status ... 157
Theme 4: District-Level Analyses and Findings Regarding Attitudes toward Poverty,
Housing Instability, and Homelessness .......................................................................... 160
Theme 5: District Organizational Structure and Demographics as Forces that Affect the
Role of School for Homeless Students ........................................................................... 166
Theme 6: Supporting Homeless Students: From Individual Initiatives to School-Level
Support ............................................................................................................................ 172
xi
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 176
Shared Challenges across Schools and Districts Regarding Student Homelessness ...... 181
District- and School-Level SES and Response to Homeless Students ........................... 184
Conclusion and Implications........................................................................................... 186
References ............................................................................................................................. 190
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 203
Chapter 5: Integration of Findings, Conclusions, and Implications for Policy, Future Research,
and Practice ................................................................................................................................. 205
Overall Major Findings and Integration with Existing Research ......................................... 207
School Violence and Victimization among School-Attending Homeless Youth ........... 207
School Violence and School Climate among Homeless and Nonhomeless Students .... 211
Role of District SES Context for Homeless Students and Their Schools ....................... 213
Contribution to Theory ......................................................................................................... 216
Implications for Future Research, Policy, and Practice ........................................................ 220
Homeless Students’ School Experience.......................................................................... 220
School Climate at the School and Student Levels: Examining Nestedness through
Contradiction................................................................................................................... 226
Doubled Up: A Hidden and Unexplored Subgroup of Homeless Children and Youth .. 227
Homelessness as a Refugee Crisis .................................................................................. 229
References ............................................................................................................................. 233

xii
List of Figures and Tables
Table 2.1. Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................... 69
Table 2.2. Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral Victimization, and Weapon Involvement ........ 71
Table 2.3. Logistic Regressions for Predicting Discriminatory Bullying and Behavioral
Victimization................................................................................................................................. 72
Table 2.4. Logistic regressions for predicting weapon involvement ............................................ 73
Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Students … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …. … …123
Table 3.2. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Discriminatory Bullying by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … … …124
Table 3.3. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Behavioral Victimization by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … … …125
Table 3.4. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Weapon Involvement by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … … …126
Table 3.5. Descriptive Statistics of Average Percentage or Mean of Variables in Schools … … …127
Table 3.6. Pearson Correlation at School Level of Demographics, Background, and School
Climate Variables with Violence … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … …128
Table 3.7. Hierarchical Linear Regression for Predicting Percentage of Violent Behavior by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate Variables … … … ….. … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. … …129
Table 4.1. Characteristics of Case Study Districts and Schools ................................................. 196
Table 4.2. Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 197
Table 4.3. Identified and Estimated Homeless Students Perceived by Teachers and Staff
Members ..................................................................................................................................... 198
Table 4.4: Distribution of Teacher Responses Regarding Awareness of Definition of
Homelessness .............................................................................................................................. 199
Table 4.5. Responses of Teachers and Staff Members Regarding School Experience of Homeless
Students ....................................................................................................................................... 200
Figure 4.1. Organizational Structure of Low–Medium SES School District Related to Homeless
Students ....................................................................................................................................... 201
Figure 4.2. High SES District Organizational Structure Related to Homeless Students ............ 202
Table A1. Design Characteristics ............................................................................................... 203
Table A2. Strategies for Rigor .................................................................................................... 204
Figure 5.1. Conceptual Model of Homeless Students in Multiple Contexts .............................. 241

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Approximately 2.5 million children and youth experience homelessness in the United
States. A substantial proportion of this population is engaged in the educational system and
attends school, at least sporadically; data from the U.S. Department of Education show that more
than 1.3 million homeless students attend public schools and local educational agencies
(National Center for Homeless Education, 2014). However, many scholars believe this
population is much larger (Cunningham, 2014; Wilkins, Mullins, Mahan, & Canfield, 2016). In
the past decade, multiple efforts and different platforms have adopted and supported the goal of
ending homelessness. Notably, the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness,
“Opening Doors” (2015), and the new introduced Ending Homelessness Act of 2017
demonstrate the attention given to homelessness and the new terminology of ending
homelessness rather than managing homelessness. Additionally, attention has been given to the
national challenge of ending homelessness by advocates, service providers, and researchers. In
particular, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare has declared ending
homelessness to be one of the 12 grand challenges facing the society, while emphasizing the role
of the social work discipline and profession in addressing this significant societal issue.
Nonetheless, despite policies targeting homeless education specifically, homeless
children and youth who are also students in schools often go under the radar in research, schools,
and the ongoing public and policy discourse of ending homelessness. This is concerning because
students who experience homelessness comprise a population that is vulnerable to multiple risk
factors and adverse experiences. Moreover, the population of homeless students includes
multiple subgroups such as unaccompanied youth, runaway youths, and children and youth who
experience homelessness with their families. Therefore, schools could be one of the main
2
ecological contexts for intervention with multiple and diverse subpopulations of the homeless
population. Research and theories that guide practices to support homeless students need to
address critical issues regarding this population.
Generally, research has been limited with regard to the intersection between
homelessness and schools (Miller, 2011b). The existing limited literature is divided between two
predominant fields of research: homelessness research and education research. These two
schools of thought tend to focus on different outcomes. One body of research, the education
reform literature, has focused on academic-related outcomes such as academic achievement,
graduation rates, and access to school among homeless students, in addition to existing education
policies related to homeless students (e.g., Abdul Rahman, Fidel Turner, & Elbedour, 2015;
Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Israel, 2006; Miller, 2011a). The second body of literature, research
focused on homelessness and homeless youth, has tended to focus on school-based samples to
learn about general behaviors and adverse outcomes of homeless children and youth, such as
victimization, substance use, mental health, and socioemotional difficulties, usually without a
focus on school-related behaviors. Therefore, knowledge about the role of school for students
experiencing homelessness with regard to their homelessness situation and school experiences
remains lacking in the literature, both conceptually and empirically (e.g., Rice et al., 2013). Both
these literatures have multiple conceptual and empirical gaps. With education research focused
on the narrow perception of the role of schools in the context of academic outcomes and
homelessness research focused on schools as a location for gathering data, little is known about
school experiences among homeless students, the importance of school as a location, and its role
in promoting risk and protective factors. In particular, school violence and safety remain
unexplored domains that deserve an in-depth inquiry, given that homeless youth constantly
3
report higher levels of victimization compared to their housed peers (Edidin, Ganim, Hunter, &
Karnik, 2012; Moore, Benbenishty, Astor, & Rice, 2017).
The McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MVA), passed in 1987, and its recent
amendments under the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), made valuable and significant
contributions to homeless students and their access to school. However, research on homeless
students, which often has focused on the implementation of the MVA, has disregarded the
complementary task of advancing and challenging the MVA. Hence, despite the importance of
the MVA, knowledge of school experiences and role of schools and districts for homeless
students is largely missing from the current understanding of the intersection between
homelessness and schools.
Based on the theoretical, empirical, and conceptual disconnection of these separate
literatures, the overarching goal of this dissertation is to develop a new line of research that
builds on the limited understanding of the intersection between homelessness and schools,
particularly the school experience of homeless students. Additionally, this dissertation is guided
by an ecological perspective, exploring the state, district, and schools as nested unexplored
contexts in which homeless students are embedded and providing a holistic approach to
illuminate gaps in the literature and develop practical implications for policy advancement and
points of intervention.
Moreover, this dissertation is built on several sources of data, including a statewide
representative sample. Despite the fact that regions and states have data regarding student
homelessness, this information has not been regularly reported or investigated with regards to
different school experience outcomes. This could also be rooted in the literature’s disconnect and
in the lack of awareness in society to the problem of student homelessness.
4
This dissertation addressed these needs in the literature: the lack of (a) empirical evidence
of the school experiences of homeless students with regard to adverse behaviors; (b) empirical
research regarding the role of schools (protective, harmful, or not significant) for students
experiencing homelessness; (c) studies on the role the district context in which schools that serve
homeless students are embedded; (d) research on important policy and practice-related issues
that may emerge from a renewed exploration of student homelessness in school districts, other
than the implementation of the MVA; (e) conceptualization and theories that include the missing
ecological perspective that encompasses the nestedness of homeless students in schools, districts,
and states; and (f) statewide empirical data and mixed-methods studies on the school experience
of homeless students. To further a research agenda focused on understanding the school as a
context for students experiencing homelessness, the specific aims of this dissertation were as
follows:
1. Examine school violence and safety of homeless students compared to their
nonhomeless peers. This is the first empirical study using a large-scale California dataset
to detail the subgroups of school-attending homeless youth (nonsheltered, sheltered,
living with a relative or friend, or living with another family) in the context of school
violence using multivariate methods. Currently, we do not have epidemiological
empirical knowledge about how these different categories of homeless students in
schools compare with their peers on risk and resilience factors related to the school. This
study will address this gap in the empirical and conceptual literatures.
2. Examine the relationship of school climate with school victimization and safety
among school-attending homeless and nonhomeless youth at the individual and
school levels. This statewide examination included the individual and school levels to
5
understand the role of school climate in the context of school violence and safety among
homeless and nonhomeless school-attending youth. Overall, the bullying and school
climate literatures have largely ignored homeless students in schools as a vulnerable
population that may need more supports or focus. Likewise, no representative empirical
studies have explored homeless students’ experiences with climate and victimization on
school grounds. This study will address this gap in the bullying and school climate
literatures.
3. Explore high and low socioeconomic contexts of districts and schools and their
impact on the role of school for homeless students at the elementary and middle
school levels. This mixed-methods case study focused on macro issues in two school
districts in Southern California, examining how they understand and serve homeless
students. The districts differed based on their SES context; one was high and one was
low–medium. Within those two districts four case study schools were included. Higher
SES school districts may have more resources to serve homeless students, however, they
may also have a lack of awareness of homeless students within their schools or not see it
as a high organizational or policy priority. By contrast Low SES district may have sparse
resources that are spread thinly, yet demonstrate a stronger awareness and infrastructure
for schools because they have many families and students at risk for homelessness. These
mixed methods district and school case studies provided complementary information to
the state level analyses. Further, this study is one of the first case studies to investigate
the role of school for homeless students in elementary and middle schools while
considering multiple contexts (classroom, school, and district).
6
Existing Research about Students Experiencing Homelessness: Background and
Exploration of Historical Research Trends
To understand the seeming lack of research focused specifically on the intersection
between homelessness and schools and the school experience of homeless students, it is
important to explore prior research trends as they manifest in the literature. The research
literature started to focus on student homelessness during the 1980s, around the time of the
passage of the MVA. The MVA was the first federal policy to address homelessness, and
remains the primary significant federal response to the issue (Miller, 2011b). Title VII-B of the
act, known as the Education for Homeless Children and Youths Program, is administrated by the
U.S. Department of Education and addresses the educational needs of children who meet the
act’s definition of homelessness, including immediate enrollment, maintenance of attendance,
and provision of equal opportunities for education.
One of the first articles that focused on student homelessness was written in 1989, closely
aligned with the original passage of the MVA in 1987 (Eddowes & Hranitz, 1989). This article,
despite being very short and relying on little data, set an agenda with a holistic perspective on the
role of schools for homeless students as providing a safe and supportive place. From 1989 until
the late 1990s, most scholarly articles on this topic were published in education-related journals,
with a few exceptions (e.g., Ziesemer, Marcoux, & Marwell, 1994; Zima, Bussing, Forness, &
Benjamin, 1997). The majority of articles described the homeless school-aged population, the
student homelessness problem, and the struggle of defining the intersection between
homelessness and schools. Issues such as socioemotional problems, safety, and stability were
mentioned mainly from idealistic, opinion and practice perspectives and as recommended topics
for further investigation, but with insufficient empirical work to support these ideas (Daniels,
7
1992; Stronge, 1993; Wiley & Ballard, 1993). None of these articles examined the school
experiences of homeless students.
After 2002, again aligning with the most recent amendment to the MVA at the time, the
No Child Left Behind Act (2001), research narrowed in two directions: (a) in the world of
education, the main outcomes examined were access to school and academic achievement, and
(b) in youth homelessness research, a growing use of school-based data to learn about various
outcomes not related to the school experiences of homeless students emerged, with the latter
direction being less evident in the literature and the majority of research focused in the education
world. These studies were important because they indicated that homeless students may be
experiencing very serious problems in schools, and that schools may be a potential setting to
address these problems. Yet, the studies were not representative, often small in scale, and were
not systemic at the district, school or state levels. Nevertheless, the finding of these studies paint
a concerning portrait on homeless students in school.
Overall, findings from multiple convenience sample studies have shown that homeless
students are more likely to have adverse academic outcomes, repeat a grade, or drop out of
school compared to their housed peers (Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Israel, 2006). Generally, findings
from these smaller sample studies collectively have demonstrated negative correlations between
homelessness and educational success (Duffield & Lovell, 2008). The National Coalition for
Homeless (2012) reported that more than half of homeless students test below their grade level in
reading and math. In addition to findings regarding success in school, the literature has suggested
that homeless students, both children and adolescents, face additional challenges that might
affect their success in school (National Coalition for Homeless, 2012; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler,
2007).
8
Additionally, research on attendance, truancy, and school mobility has demonstrated that
more than 40% of homeless youth attend two or more schools a year, with each change causing
4–6 months of delay in the educational process (Hinrichsen & Kollin, 2012). Research has
shown that high mobility and transfers between schools require students to adapt to a new school
environment, adjust to new norms and rules, build new relationships, and adjust to new curricula,
regardless of the subgroup to which they might belong (sheltered, nonsheltered, etc.; Masten et
al., 2012). Although the MVA is aimed at eliminating school mobility barriers through the
provision of services such as transportation and easier enrollment, research has shown that
although the implementation of the MVA is mandatory, students still face challenges related to
transitions (Miller, Pavlakis, Samartino, & Bourgeois, 2015).
A small segment of the literature has focused on outcomes not related to academic
achievement or the implementation of the MVA. These articles used school-based data to
investigate issues regarding homeless youth without including the school context or school
experiences of homeless youth. Findings from these samples have shown that high rates of
homelessness exist among sexual minority adolescents (Corliss, Goodenow, Nichols, & Austin,
2011), substance use is extremely prevalent among school-attending homeless youth and adult
support is a protective factor (Ferguson & Xie, 2012), and adolescents who report sexual activity
and sexual risk taking are more likely to report homelessness experiences (Rice et al., 2013).
Since 2009, examination of the implementation of the MVA has expanded and the scope
of publication domains has widened to include not only education-related journals but also social
work and public health journals (e.g., Cutuli et al., 2015; Rice et al., 2013). Research focused on
the implementation of the MVA demonstrated that despite the existence of the policy, homeless
students remain underidentified and underserved (Groton, Teasley, & Canfield, 2013; Hallett,
9
Skrla, & Low, 2015; Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Israel, 2006; Julianelle, 2008; Miller, 2011a; Shea,
Zetlin, & Weinberg, 2010; Thompson & Davis, 2003). Although the policy specifically
addresses the importance of the district-level homeless liaison, research regarding this role is
scarce (Wilkins et al., 2016).
An important implication of this review is that shifts in scholarly work can be traced back
to policy changes and not vice versa, meaning that policy has guided and directed research
involving homeless students, yet this has left the lived school experiences of homeless students
in the dark. Although prior research built a necessary foundation for understanding the
experiences of homeless students, it is not sufficient, which emphasizes the importance of
expanding our perspective on homeless students to include their school experiences with
implications for the field, theory, research, and policy.
In addition to scholarly journal articles, several books and guides related specifically to
homeless students were published in the past decade, targeting mainly school and district
administrators and staffs (Canfield, 2015; Hallett & Skrla, 2017; Murphy & Tobin, 2011). These
guides all established the need for new directions in the research of homeless students and
highlighted the urgent need for research on the issue of homeless students, their school
experiences, and the role of school in their lives.
Regarding the methodology, several developmental-historical trends should be taken into
consideration. First, large databases have not been used to investigate homeless students; existing
studies relied on data gathered based on the MVA and academic achievement. Since 2003, the
use of administrative data has become more prevalent with regard to examining homeless
students’ academic achievement (Masten, Fiat, Labella, & Strack, 2015). Again, focused on
academic achievement, findings from both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies indicated
10
extensive achievement gaps between homeless students and their nonhomeless peers (Aratani &
Cooper, 2015; Obradović et al., 2009), with a significant gap between low-income and homeless
students and much lower reading and mathematics scores among homeless students (Cutuli et al.,
2013). Although the use of these data is very important to understanding academic achievement,
questions regarding school experiences remain unaddressed, and an expanded investigation
regarding why these outcomes are occurring is needed.
Another methodological trend is the use of schools as sites for data collection, a prevalent
feature of studies published in the homelessness research arena (e.g., Ferguson & Xie, 2012;
Rice et al., 2013). Schools provide unique sites for data collection to understand risk behaviors
and the distinct needs of subgroups. However, the outcomes investigated in these studies did not
include school experiences and risk behaviors in school.
Additionally, from a methodological perspective, multilevel analysis is lacking, despite
several articles that used a multilevel approach (Miller et al., 2015; S. Stone & Uretsky, 2016).
The lack of understanding of districts and schools as units of analysis leaves many questions
unanswered, including the role of school (protective or harmful) for homeless students, the role
of homeless students for the school and their peers, and the nested nature of homeless students in
schools and districts.
This dissertation aimed to shift the conversation from the MVA’s boundaries toward
viewing the policy as one factor influencing the experiences of homeless students, while
focusing on schools as the center of research. This dissertation aimed to expand the
understanding of schools both as locations and as having a role for homeless students while
exploring the larger ecological context of the district and state. Its goal included generating a
11
more comprehensive understanding of homeless students and contributing to relevant research,
theory, practice, and policies.
Homeless Students in California
California has the highest number of homeless students across the country, ranging
between 200,000 and 270,000 in the past 5 years, representing about 20% of student
homelessness nationwide (Hyatt, Walzer, & Julianelle, 2014). In 2016 and 2017, more than
200,000 students (3% of all students) reported living in a motel, shelter, trailer park, car, park,
emergency housing, or doubled up with friends and families due to economic hardship
(EdSource, 2017a). Therefore, it is essential to better understand homeless students’ needs and
those of the schools and districts that serve them to better support homeless students’ equal
opportunity for education.
Findings show that the majority of homeless students in California are in K-5 education,
meaning that when developing services at the school and district levels to support homeless
students, one must consider the fact that many of the students experience family homelessness.
Additionally, in 2015, 86% of California homeless children were doubled up, meaning they lived
with friends or families due to the fact that they could not afford their own residence. Overall,
doubled-up students remain a hidden and underserved population, because this category
challenges narrower definitions of homelessness (EdSource, 2017b). This category presents
unique obstacles for students that must be addressed, including housing instability and lack of
resources and privacy (Hallett, 2011).
Additionally, and potentially related to the doubled-up category, it should be noted that
the ethnic distribution of California public school students in recent years consistently has shown
Hispanic or Latinx students represent about 50% of all students (California Department of
12
Education, 2016). Despite little research on the intersections between student homelessness and
immigration status, it can be assumed that homeless students from immigrant families face
unique challenges that require culturally sensitive responses.
Regarding the location in which homeless students in California are identified, findings
have shown that Homeless students attend schools in urban, suburban, and rural areas, yet the
majority of studies have tended to focus on students in urban districts. For example, in 2015, the
largest number of homeless students in the state attended Los Angeles Unified School District,
yet rural Trinity County had the highest percentage of homeless students. Suburban districts were
among the top six in overall number of homeless students. Research is desperately needed to
address student homelessness from a statewide perspective and specifically with suburban and
rural school districts, which often go under the radar.
According to recent data findings reported by the California Department of Education
(EdSource, 2017b), more than 2,700 of the state’s nearly 10,500 schools still report not having
homeless students. That demonstrates the vital need to learn about the school experience of
homeless students and school and district practices of identifying and supporting homeless
students and their families, especially because these services are required by state and federal
law and funding is available to support these students, schools, and districts.
Theoretical Framework
This dissertation was guided by two main central theories nested in two conceptual
models. The first overarching theory is ecological systems theory, embedded in the heuristic
conceptual model of Astor and Benbenishty (2018). The second main theory is the social
developmental model, nested in the risk amplification and abatement model (Milburn et al.,
2009).
13
Ecological Systems Theory
The ecological perspective originated with biological theories that explain how organisms
adapt to their environments. This theory has evolved and been adapted to different disciplines,
including social sciences. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) formulated ecological systems theory to
explain how the inherent qualities of a child and the features of the external environment with
which the child interacts influence the child’s development. This theory emphasizes the
importance of context and multiple environments, also known as ecological systems, in an
attempt to understand an individual’s development. The social work discipline has expanded this
perspective to explain that an individual is “constantly creating, restructuring, and adapting to the
environment even as the environment affects the person” (Ungar, 2002, p. 481). The systems
approach has since added social elements to this interactive process. Ecological theories focus on
interrelation transactions among systems and emphasize that all existing elements in an
ecosystem play an important role in maintaining the balance of the whole.
Conceptual Heuristic Model of Astor and Benbenishty
The conceptual heuristic model of Astor and Benbenishty (2018) expands on the
ecological systems theory and served as a guideline for this work. Astor and Benbenishty’s
integrative model places the school, rather than the individual student, in the center of
investigation. Astor and Benbenishty argued that both internal and external contexts of the
school influence the school. Internal contexts include the organization, climate, and dynamics in
the school. The unique exterior contextual environment in which schools are embedded includes
the district, neighborhoods, and communities. Districts play a vital role as an outside context,
because they carry the responsibility and the discretion of funding distribution, catering to the
requirements of multiple stakeholders, and specifically with regard to homeless students, the
14
mandate to provide services that ensure an equal opportunity for education. Moreover,
neighborhoods and local communities are contexts that influence schools and districts.
This conceptual model is especially relevant to homeless students in terms of better
understanding their school experience, the role of internal contexts such as school climate and
school violence, and the external role of the district and community.
Social Developmental Model
The social developmental model is a human behavior theory that explains the factors and
impact of developmental processes during childhood and adolescence, and their relation to
positive or problematic behaviors (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins,
Newcomb, & Abbott, 1996). In essence, the theory highlights both risk and protective factors for
children and adolescents to predict the development of behavioral patterns as they mature. The
main premise of the theory is that children internalize attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of social
units in which they are embedded or close to, such as family, school, peer group, or
neighborhood. If the social unit has either prosocial or antisocial attitudes, the child will adopt
them. According to the theory, social agents and the process of socialization have an immense
impact on the development of future behavioral patterns. Socialization that provides the most
consistency in terms of opportunities and skills for involvement will lead to a bonding process
between the child and the social unit. The child is likely to adopt social norms held by those to
whom the child is bonded.
Risk Amplification and Abatement Model
The importance of social agents in different levels of social organizations and the contact
between them and homeless youth has been demonstrated in the risk amplification and
abatement model (Milburn et al., 2009). This model considers the background of homeless youth
15
and shows that contact with socializing agents could either amplify or abate risk for homeless
youth, depending on the nature of the contact. The model suggests that the behaviors of homeless
youth are affected by engagement in negative or positive socialization experiences during their
life and across multiple socialization agents, including schools.
This model is relevant to this study because it focuses specifically on homeless youth and
their relationships with socialization agents. This model focuses on the individual—i.e., the
homeless youth perspective—and the role of outside socialization agents in relation to the
individual.
Conceptual Model
This study relied on a framework that integrates the aforementioned theories and models
in a manner that informed the study design and analyses. The overarching conceptual model
captured in a Venn diagram (Figure 1.1) presents the intersection among three worlds: schools,
homelessness, and adverse behaviors. This dissertation focused not only on the overlapping area
but also on interaction among these three worlds of knowledge. This means that the findings and
contributions to theory would not only inform each world of knowledge, each with its own
outcomes of interest, but also achieve the all-embracing goal of starting a discourse that will
build a new area of interest and advance knowledge on this intersection in a bidirectional
manner.
Studies 1 and 2 (Chapters 2 and 3) of this dissertation narrow down the comprehensive
conceptual model and specifically examine school violence and bullying and school climate.
This established a body of work that will serve as a guideline for replication with additional
behavioral outcomes such as substance use, mental health, and other issues. The premise is that
the intersectional nature is connected to the social work discipline and presents intersectionality
16
as a way to understand power structures and an appropriate perspective from which to address
social justice problems. Study 3 (Chapter 4) focuses on the nestedness of homeless students in
high and low SES schools, districts, and communities while emphasizing the role of both internal
and external factors in the school experience of homeless students.
As captured in the overlapping area of Figure 1.1, this conceptual model addresses the
seeming lack of research around the population of homeless students, theories about the
intersection between, schools and homelessness, and related policies.
Deconstructing the Conceptual Model
Homelessness
The definition of homelessness often varies among different departments that provide
services to the homeless population, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Department of
Education (Canfield, 2015).
The federal definition that specifically relates to homeless students in schools is Title
VII-B of the MVA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), which defines
homeless children and youth as individuals who lack a regular, fixed, and adequate nighttime
residence; share housing due to economic struggles (doubled up); or live in a shelter, hotel,
motel, or public place not designed for sleeping, including unaccompanied youth, children or
adolescents with a pending foster care placement, children or youth abandoned in a hospital, and
migrant children who qualify based on the aforementioned criteria.
Although the definition of homeless children and youth and their families varies based on
different policies, the MVA definition notes several important subgroups in the homeless
population, primarily doubled-up students. These rarely examined subgroups are among the foci
17
of this dissertation study. In fact, this was the first study to detail types of homelessness in the
context of school violence.
Role of Schools and School Location
The role of schools in society and the goals of education for students in general have been
discussed for decades (Labaree, 1997; D. Stone, 2001). Different goals such as democratic
equality, equity, social efficiency, and social mobility have been mentioned in this context.
Despite various standpoints, consensus exists regarding the fact that schools matter for the
development and future of children and adolescents. This dissertation posited that schools are
important to explore because they are a unique location in which events happen (e.g., school
victimization, substance use in school) and also play an important role in the lives of students.
This investigation that places schools at the center considered their dynamic and ecological
nature, in which multiple factors affect one another.
Nestedness of Schools
Benbenishty and Astor (2005) suggested that schools should be viewed as nested
organizations and that multiple factors are associated with students’ behaviors and academic
outcomes. Individual students are nested in classrooms, which are nested in schools, which are
nested in neighborhoods and districts, which are nested in a society. When aiming to understand
the role of schools for homeless students who attend them, it is vital to consider the dynamic and
ecological environment both horizontally and vertically.
School Climate
Although consensus is lacking among researchers with regard to its definition, school
climate can be roughly defined as the “quality and character of school life. School climate is
based on patterns of students’, parents’ and school personnel’s experience of school life and
18
reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and
organizational structures” (National School Climate Council, 2016, para. 3). Research has
suggested that significant differences exist in climate definitions and measurements (Berkowitz,
Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). However, a research review of educational literature found
that although all dimensions of school climate may not be agreed upon, several dimensions have
drawn wider consensus. First, the majority of studies examining climate showed that a
supportive and caring approach from teachers is an incremental dimension that should be
included in school climate research (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Additionally, a sense of
connectedness and meaningful participation or engagement with the school and a sense of safety
were identified as central dimensions of school climate (Berkowitz et al., 2017).
Victimization among Homeless Youth
Prior studies have explored victimization among homeless youth in different social
contexts, including experiences of victimization prior to being homeless, street victimization, and
correlations among victimization, substance use, and mental health (Tyler & Melander, 2015).
Findings showed that being a homeless youth is associated with higher levels of victimization,
and that homeless youth experience higher rates of victimization compared to their housed peers
(Brown, Begun, Bender, Ferguson, & Thompson, 2015; Heerde & Hemphill, 2014). Research
has focused on street victimization among homeless youth and has recognized several negative
consequences, specifically poorer mental health (including depressive symptoms), posttraumatic
stress, and suicidal ideation (Edidin et al., 2012; Rattelade, Farrell, Aubry, & Klodawsky, 2014).
Additional factors might be associated with homeless students’ experiences, such as
victimization and violence, particularly among gang members (Ferguson & Xie, 2012). Being
involved in a gang is common among homeless youth (Petering, 2016), and research has shown
19
that victimization and violence are associated with gang activity (Estrada, Gilreath, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2016).
Dissertation Structure
This dissertation is composed of three studies presented across three chapters. The aim of
this three-article dissertation was to produce multiple studies that are prepared for publication to
rapidly distribute the findings across the research community, service providers, and policy
makers. Although the studies are independent, each study sheds light on an unexplored domain
with regard to homeless students, including the exploration of school violence and the
association between school climate and school violence among school-attending homeless and
nonhomeless youth. Moreover, this is one of the first works to focus on elementary and middle
schools with regard to homeless students and the related role of schools and districts. Together,
the three studies tell a story that demonstrates the importance of all levels—schools, district, and
state—in addressing the challenges of homeless students. This has implications for schools,
districts, and state and national policies and practices to better serve our homeless students.
The three studies included in the following chapters explore how homelessness and
schools intersect through multiple methodologies and an ecological perspective that includes the
state, district, and school levels at elementary, middle, and high schools in California. The data
for Study 1 and Study 2 were collected by the California Healthy Kids Survey research project
conducted by WestEd on behalf of the California Department of Education. The data for these
studies are based on student responses to the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS). The
CHKS is a comprehensive survey composed of several modules that assess demographic
information, multiple school behaviors, and risk and protective factors including school violence
and bullying, school climate, and resilience. The data for these studies include a census of all
20
students in the ninth and 11th grades in schools across California from 2011 to 2013. The data
for this study are responses in the core module.
The goal of Chapter 2 (Study 1) is to provide an epidemiological exploration of school
violence behaviors among multiple subgroups of homeless students compared to nonhomeless
students in high schools in the state of California. Being the first empirical study to examine
school violence among homeless students using large-scale representative data, this study
involved detailed descriptive statistical analyses of school discriminatory bullying, school
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement in school. Using multivariate analysis, the
role of homelessness is explored across the three outcomes. Unlike previous studies on homeless
youth which tended to focus on street youth, study 1 is the first study to examine subgroups of
homeless students, including nonsheltered homeless students, sheltered homeless students, and
doubled-up students, in the context of school violence. This study will explore the possibility that
homeless students across all subgroups are at higher risk, compared to their housed peers, of
experiencing school violence, especially weapon involvement. Study 1 frames aims to use the
findings to impact statewide and national policies surrounding homeless students and homeless
youths.
The goal of Chapter 3 (Study 2) is to examine the relationship between school climate
and school violence among homeless and nonhomeless students in high schools in California.
Study 2 builds on Study 1 and involved analyses on the individual student and school levels.
This type of investigation provides information that enables us to learn about the role of school
climate for homeless students from a theoretically nested perspective, examining information
from the individual student level and the school level while contrasting these sources of data.
This study used an ecological approach to understand the role of school climate in school
21
violence among both homeless and nonhomeless students. Multivariate analyses were conducted
at the individual and school levels to examine the role of school climate in the outcomes of
discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement among homeless and
nonhomeless students. Study 2 will explore the possible contribution of the addition of school
climate dimensions to the demographic variables to each outcome at the individual level. At the
school level, prior studies suggest positive school climate may decrease discriminatory bullying,
behavioral discrimination, and weapon involvement. Positive school climate may serve as a
protective factor for school-attending homeless youth. Study 2 aims to apply the findings to
current research and practice. There may be a need to enhance interventions that improve school
climate at the school level.
The goal of Chapter 4 (Study 3) is to examine high and low–medium socioeconomic
status (SES) districts and schools, as macro contexts that affect the role of schools for homeless
students in elementary and middle schools in California. In this mixed-methods case study, two
school districts (one high SES and one low–medium SES) and four elementary and middle
schools are compared. This study explores the role of district- and school-level SES in the school
experience of homeless students. This is one of the first studies to focus on students experiencing
homelessness in elementary schools, while centering on districts with different SES contexts, not
only low SES. This study explores the way in which differences in districts’ and schools’ SES
context, may lead to underidentifying, underserving, and lacking awareness of homeless
students. District administrators may perceive and approach student homelessness in a different
manner, both conceptually and organizationally based on the districts SES. Study 3 will discuss
the implications for school- and district-level contextual factors that affect homeless students and
offers recommendations to improve support for homeless students across different SES contexts.
22
References
Abdul Rahman, M., Fidel Turner, J., & Elbedour, S. (2015). The U.S. homeless student
population: Homeless youth education, review of research classifications and typologies,
and the U.S. federal legislative response. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44, 687–709.
doi:10.1007/s10566-014-9298-2
Aratani, Y., & Cooper, J. L. (2015). The effects of runaway-homeless episodes on high school
dropout. Youth & Society, 47, 173–198. doi:10.1177/0044118X12456406
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family,
school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
doi:10.3102/0034654316669821
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, S. M., Begun, S., Bender, K., Ferguson, K. M., & Thompson, S. J. (2015). An
exploratory factor analysis of coping styles and relationship to depression among a
sample of homeless youth. Community Mental Health Journal, 51, 818–827.
doi:10.1007/s10597-015-9870-8
California Department of Education. (2016). Fingertip facts on education in California. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
23
Canfield, J. (2015). School-based practice with children and youth experiencing homelessness.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Catalano R. F., & Hawkins J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial
behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–
197). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1996).
Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development
model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 429–455. doi:10.1177/002204269602600207
Corliss, H. L., Goodenow, C. S., Nichols, L., & Austin, S. B. (2011). High burden of
homelessness among sexual-minority adolescents: Findings from a representative
Massachusetts high school sample. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1683–1689.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300155
Cunningham, K. A. (2014). A question of priorities: A critical investigation of the McKinney-
Vento Act. Critical Questions in Education, 5, 218–232.
Cutuli, J. J., Steinway, C., Perlman, S., Herbers, J. E., Eyrich-Garg, K. M., & Willard, J. (2015).
Youth homelessness: Prevalence and associations with weight in three regions. Health &
Social Work, 40, 316–324. doi:10.1093/hsw/hlv065
Daniels, J. (1992). Empowering homeless children through school counseling. Elementary
School Guidance & Counseling, 27, 104–112.
Duffield, B., & Lovell, P. (2008). The economic crisis hits home: The unfolding increase in child
and youth homelessness. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Homeless Children and Youth & First Focus.
24
Eddowes, E. A., & Hranitz, J. R. (1989). Educating children of the homeless. Childhood
Education, 65, 197–200. doi:10.1080/00094056.1989.10522433
Edidin, J. P., Ganim, Z., Hunter, S. J., & Karnik, N. S. (2012). The mental and physical health of
homeless youth: A literature review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 354–
375. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0270-1
EdSource. (2017a). California map shows hot spots of homeless students. Retrieved from
https://edsource.org/2017/24idwest24ia-map-shows-hot-spots-of-homeless-
students/588165
EdSource. (2017b). Shelters, cars and crowded rooms: California ’s homeless students. Retrieved
from http://www.dailynews.com/2017/10/04/shelters-cars-and-crowded-rooms-
californias-homeless-students/
Ending Homelessness Act of 2017, H.R. 2076
Estrada, J. N., Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A statewide study of gang
membership in California secondary schools. Youth & Society, 48, 720–736.
doi:10.1177/0044118X14528957
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub L. No. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. ch. 28 § 1001 et seq. 20 U.S.C. ch.
70 (2015)
Ferguson, K. M., & Xie, B. (2012). Adult support and substance use among homeless youths
who attend high school. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41, 427–445. doi:10.1007/s10566-
012-9175-9
Groton, D., Teasley, M. L., & Canfield, J. P. (2013). Working with homeless school-aged
children: Barriers to school social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 37(2), 37–
51.
25
Hallett, R. E. (2011). Educational experiences of hidden homeless teenagers: Living doubled-up.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hallett, R. E., & Skrla, L. (2017). Serving students who are homeless: A resource guide for
schools, districts, and educational leaders. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallett, R. E., Skrla, L., & Low, J. (2015). That is not what homeless is: A school district’s
journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and economically displaced children and
youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 671–692.
doi:10.1080/09518398.2015.1017859
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2014). A systematic review of associations between
perpetration of physically violent behaviors and property offenses, victimization and use
of substances among homeless youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 265–277.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.020
Hinrichsen, C., & Kollin, M. (2012). Schools stabilize families: Back to school for homeless
children. Retrieved from http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/09/Schools-
Stabilize-Families–Back-to-School-for-Homeless-Kids
Hyatt, S., Walzer, B., & Julianelle, P. (2014). California ’s homeless students: A growing
population. Retrieved from
http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/CaliforniasHomelessStudents_Agrowing
Population.pdf
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H., & Israel, N. (2006). Services to homeless students and families:
The McKinney-Vento Act and its implications for school social work practice. Children
& Schools, 28, 37–44. doi:10.1093/cs/28.1.37
26
Julianelle, P. (2008). Using what we know: Supporting the education of unaccompanied
homeless youth. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7, 4–51.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39–81.
doi:10.3102/00028312034001039
Masten, A. S., Fiat, A. E., Labella, M. H., & Strack, R. A. (2015). Educating homeless and
highly mobile students: Implications of research on risk and resilience. School
Psychology Review, 44, 315–330. doi:10.17105/spr-15-0068.1
Masten, A. S., Herbers, J. E., Desjardins, C. D., Cutuli, J. J., McCormick, C. M., Sapienza, J. K.,
… Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Executive function skills and school success in young children
experiencing homelessness. Educational Researcher, 41, 375–384.
doi:10.3102/0013189X12459883
McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. §
11301 et seq. (1987).
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., …
Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting homelessness over two years: The risk
amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762–785.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00610.x
Miller, P. M. (2011a). An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the
homeless education situation. Educational Policy, 25, 424–450.
doi:10.1177/0895904809351692
Miller, P. M. (2011b). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of
Educational Research, 81, 308–337. doi:10.3102/0034654311415120
27
Miller, P. M., Pavlakis, A., Samartino, L., & Bourgeois, A. (2015). Brokering educational
opportunity for homeless students and their families. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 28, 730–749. doi:10.1080/09518398.2015.1017860
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
Murphy, J. F., & Tobin, K. (2011). Homelessness comes to school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Center for Homeless Education. (2014). Education for homeless children and youth,
consolidated state performance report data, school years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-
13. Retrieved from http://center.serve.org/nche/downloads/data-comp-1011-1213.pdf
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2012). Data collection summary from school year 2010-
2011federally required data collection for the McKinney-Vento Education
Assistance Improvements Act of 2001 and comparison of the SY 2008-09, SY 2009-
10 and SY 2010- 11 data collections. Washington, DC: Author.
National School Climate Council. (2016). School climate. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
Obradović, J., Long, J. D., Cutuli, J. J., Chan, C.-K., Hinz, E., Heistad, D., & Masten, A. S.
(2009). Academic achievement of homeless and highly mobile children in an urban
school district: Longitudinal evidence of risk, growth, and resilience. Development and
Psychopathology, 21, 493–518. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000273
28
Opening Door (2010). Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Retrieved from:
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendm
ent2015_FINAL.pdf
Petering, R. (2016). Sexual risk, substance use, mental health, and trauma experiences of gang-
involved homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.009
Rattelade, S., Farrell, S., Aubry, T., & Klodawsky, F. (2014). The relationship between
victimization and mental health functioning in homeless youth and adults. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1606–1622. doi:10.1177/0886260513511529
Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Fulginiti, A., Astor, R., … Kordic,
T. (2013). Homelessness experiences, sexual orientation, and sexual risk taking among
high school students in Los Angeles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 773–778.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.011
Shea, N. M., Zetlin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2010). Improving school stability: An
exploratory study of the work of the AB 490 liaisons in California. Children and Youth
Services Review, 32, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.013
Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton & Co.
Stone, S., & Uretsky, M. (2016). School correlates of academic behaviors and performance
among McKinney–Vento identified youth. Urban Education, 51, 600–628.
doi:10.1177/004208591560254
Stronge, J. H. (1993). Educating homeless students in urban settings: An introduction to the
issues. Education and Urban Society, 25, 315–322. doi:10.1177/0013124593025004001
29
Thompson, J. A., & Davis, S. M. (2003). Educating homeless children: Perceptions of school
homeless liaisons. Poster presented at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Society for
Community Research and Action, Las Vegas, NV.
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. (2007). Homeless youth in the United States: Recent
research findings and intervention approaches. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/toro/
Tyler, K. A., & Melander, L. A. (2015). Child abuse, street victimization, and substance use
among homeless young adults. Youth & Society, 47, 502–519.
doi:10.1177/0044118X12471354
Ungar, M. (2002). A deeper, more social ecological social work practice. Social Service Review,
76, 480–497. doi:10.1086/341185
Wiley, D. C., & Ballard, D. J. (1993). How can schools help children from homeless families?
Journal of School Health, 63, 291–293. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.1993.tb06146.x
Wilkins, B. T., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P. (2016). Homeless liaisons’
awareness about the implementation of the McKinney–Vento Act. Children & Schools,
38, 57–64. doi:10.1093/cs/cdv041
Ziesemer, C., Marcoux, L., & Marwell, B. E. (1994). Homeless children: Are they different from
other low-income children? Social Work, 39, 658–668. doi:10.1093/sw/39.6.658
Zima, B. T., Bussing, R., Forness, S. R., & Benjamin, B. (1997). Sheltered homeless children:
Their eligibility and unmet need for special education evaluations. American Journal of
Public Health, 87, 236–240. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.2.236
30
Figure 1.1. Overarching Conceptual Model (Left) and Conceptual Model for Dissertation Study
(Right)

31
Chapter 2 (Study 1): A Statewide Representative Study of School-Based Victimization,
Discriminatory Bullying, and Weapon Involvement among Homeless and Nonhomeless
Youth

Abstract
Research has indicated that homeless youth are at higher risk of victimization, yet little is known
about bullying and school-violence in the context of homeless students. Specifically, limited
research has considered different subgroups of homeless students according to the McKinney-
Vento Act (nonsheltered, sheltered, doubled up) in comparison to nonhomeless students. Using a
representative population sample of California public high school students (N = 390,028),
bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences among nonsheltered,
sheltered and doubled up homeless students on levels of discriminatory bullying, behavioral
victimization and weapon involvement at school. The results show that homeless students from
all subgroups are at high risk of experiencing school violence. The severity of findings
emphasizes the need to develop school-based interventions focused on specific subgroups of
homeless students.

32
Introduction
Little is known about the school bullying and victimization experiences of homeless
students. Given the potential isolation, high transition, and ecological instability of homeless
youth and families, this population of students is likely vulnerable to bullying. Yet, only a
handful of representative bullying studies have included or examined homeless students.
There are multiple potential reasons for the absence of empirical studies exploring
bullying and homeless students. School-attending homeless youth represent a distinct and hidden
group that is often underidentified by educators (Hallett, Skrla, & Low, 2015). In addition,
students and families are sometimes reluctant to self-identify due to fear of stigma (Hall, 2007;
Murphy & Tobin, 2011). Perhaps, more than any other reason there appears to be a pervasive
lack of awareness in the general public, amongst administrators, educators and parents
surrounding specific definitions of homelessness (e.g., under the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act’s ; 1987; Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program; Cunningham,
Harwood, & Hall, 2010).
This definitional confusion leaves many homeless students in schools unidentified and
invisible for potential services and supports. According to the U.S. Department of Education
(2016), a record 1.3 million homeless students are currently enrolled in public schools, of whom
90,000 identify as unaccompanied homeless youth (National Center for Homeless Education,
2016). In California alone, during the 2012–2013 school year, there were 270,000 homeless
students, accounting for 21% of homeless students in the country (Hyatt, Walzer, & Julianelle,
2014).
Policy makers acknowledged homeless students’ unique condition more than 30 years
ago with the passage of the MVA (1987), signaling schools’ and districts’ obligation to be aware
33
of the distinctive vulnerabilities of homeless students and provide them with services that create
equal opportunity for education. Being bullied is one of the most obvious potential obstacles for
homeless children entering new schools. Still, with less than a handful of exceptions, researchers
have largely overlooked homeless students’ experiences of school violence (Moore, 2017;
Moore, Benbenishty, Astor, & Rice, 2017). To date, the few studies exploring the violence and
victimization experiences of homeless youth have tended to focus on samples drawn from
shelters or drop-in centers, and did not inquire about issues relating to school violence (see
Ferguson & Xie, 2012; Moore et al., 2017 for a discussion of these studies). Some studies use
schools as a site for data collection for knowledge about homeless youth and families but do not
explore the experiences of bullying in the school (e.g., Ferguson & Xie, 2012; Rice et al., 2013).
The majority of research on student homelessness has centered on topics of academic
achievement and the implementation of the MVA (Canfield, 2014; Hallett et al., 2015; Miller,
2011a, 2011b). These omissions have created empirical gaps in both the bullying and
homelessness literatures on experiences of school bullying, and victimization.
Despite the fact that schools represent a unique context in the lives of homeless youth, the
MVA and research literature do not emphasize the school experiences and nonacademic
outcomes of homeless students. The MVA mandates data collection and intervention related to
identification and attendance of homeless students, which might be the reason that researchers
and school districts have targeted these topics while overlooking contextual factors such as
bullying, school violence and substance use in school (Moore, 2017). School violence and
bullying among school-attending homeless youth is an important area to explore for several
reasons.
34
First, school violence presents unique characteristics and typologies that are specifically
related to the school context (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005) that may
be different than street violence.
Second, schools as organizations may be the last social institution homeless youth
interact with prior to disengaging from all social institutions giving schools a distinctive role for
school-attending homeless youth (Murphy & Tobin, 2011).
Third, schools can be both a risky and protective context for homeless youth. A previous
study focused on nonsheltered school-attending homeless youth found that positive school
climate was associated with less school violence, which supports the assumption that schools
play a role in the lives of homeless students and that the school context affects homeless
students’ school experience (Moore et al., 2017).
Fourth, schools may be one of the only mutual institutions in which both homeless and
nonhomeless youth engage and share experiences, which allows for a comparison between their
school experiences and among subgroups of homeless students.
To address this gap in the empirical literature, this study compared the school violence
experiences (e.g., discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, weapon involvement) in a
statewide large-scale representative sample of nonhomeless students and subgroups of homeless
high school students (nonsheltered, sheltered, living with a relative or friend, living with another
family). This is one of the first studies to compare bullying and victimization homelessness,
violence and other risk factors for an entire state—providing and epidemiological perspective
and comparisons.
35
Student Homelessness: Definition and Characteristics
Prior to assessing the experiences of bullying with homeless students, it is important to
illuminate the definition of homelessness under the MVA and explain further why the varying
definitions and awareness around them have been obstacles for accurate epidemiological studies
on homelessness and bullying. The definition of homelessness varies among different U.S.
federal offices that provide services to homeless youth, including the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of
Education (Hallett et al., 2015; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007). The homelessness definition in
Title VII-B of the MVA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015), is the
definition used for this study, because it focuses specifically on homeless students. The policy
defines homeless children and youth as individuals who lack a regular, fixed, and adequate
nighttime residence; share housing due to economic struggles (doubled up); live in a shelter,
hotel, motel, or public place not designed for sleeping; or couch surf. This definition is broad
compared to other definitions and inclusive of several subgroups that are not always recognized
by other offices’ definitions, especially the doubled-up category. Differences among the school
experiences of various subgroups of homeless students have remained unexplored in the context
of school violence. In part, this is due to the lack of awareness and inclusion of these types of
homeless categories into research. In addition, it impacts the public’s awareness about the extent
of the problem. This is first study to focus on subgroups covered by the various definitions of
homeless youth to understand differences among them and between them and nonhomeless
students in the context of school violence using a representative statewide sample.
In the federal data summary of the National Center for Homeless Education (2012–2015),
several key findings outline the characteristics of homeless students. First, data regarding the
36
primary nighttime residence of homeless students indicated the different types of homelessness
among youth in schools, with 76% doubled up and 3% nonsheltered (National Center for
Homeless Education, 2016). This means that the majority of homeless students are doubled up or
sheltered, yet most research regarding homeless youth has focused on runaway and nonsheltered
youth, emphasizing the need to learn more about different groups in the homeless student
population. Moreover, homeless students often experience intersections of marginalization
alongside their homelessness status; the federal data summary showed that homeless students
with disabilities represent 20% or more of the homeless student population, limited English
proficiency stands at more than 10%, and migratory students at about 9% (National Center for
Homeless Education, 2016). These and additional unexplored intersections are important to
consider while examining the school victimization of homeless students, because research has
shown that students with disabilities are at higher risk of bullying compared to their peers (Blake,
Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012), as are immigrant students (Peguero, 2008). These factors are
also associated with vulnerability and victimization in school. Hence, it is expected that
victimization of homeless students at school will be very high compared with nonhomeless
peers.
Homeless Youth and Multiple Types of Victimization
Research and public policy reports have indicated that homeless youth are at higher risk
of multiple adverse outcomes compared to their nonhomeless peers (Edidin, Ganim, Hunter, &
Karnik, 2012; Hudson et al., 2010). In particular, research showed that different types of
victimization are extremely prevalent among homeless youth, including sexual victimization
(Heerde & Hemphill, 2016b; Tyler, Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Cauce, 2004), street victimization (Chen,
Thrane, Whitbeck, Johnson, & Hoyt, 2007; Thrane, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Yoder, 2006),
37
perpetration (Heerde & Hemphill, 2016a), and physical victimization (Chen et al., 2007).
Experiences of violence among homeless youth often have been explored in various contexts,
including a chronological context, e.g., background of abuse leading to homelessness or violent
experiences on the streets (Thrane et al., 2006; Toro et al., 2007); a social and relationship
context, e.g., intimate partner abuse (Slesnick, Erdem, Collins, Patton, & Buettner, 2010); a
location context, e.g., the streets or shelters (Chen et al., 2007; Mottet & Ohle, 2006); and in the
context of intersectionality with individual or identity factors, e.g., the intersection between
youth homelessness and sexual minority status (Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002).
Additionally, when considering unique characteristics of the homeless youth population
in the context of violent experiences, it is important to note that being involved in a gang is
common among homeless youth (Petering, 2016), and research has shown that victimization and
violence in schools are associated with gang activity (Estrada, Gilreath, Astor, & Benbenishty,
2016). In one of the only studies that focused on homeless students, experiences of victimization
and violence outside of school were associated with gang membership (Ferguson & Xie, 2012).
Additionally, in a study using CHKS data, findings suggested that when gang members
participate in risky behaviors in school, they are more likely to perpetrate school violence
(Estrada et al., 2016). Hence, the intersection among gang membership, the presence of gangs in
school, and school violence among homeless youth should be considered when examining
homeless students and school violence.
The school as a context of violence, both as a location and a social and institutional
context, remains an unexplored gap in the literature, especially regarding different subgroups of
homeless students as compared to their peers.
38
School Safety: Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral Victimization, and Weapon
Involvement
School violence is a broad concept that includes distinct types of behaviors (Astor,
Guerra, & Van Acker, 2010). When examining the intersection among school, violence, and
homeless youth, capturing different types of school violence experienced by school-attending
homeless youth may yield information that will further the understanding of the life experiences
and needs of homeless youth. Broadly defined, school violence can be viewed as “any behavior
intended to harm, physically or emotionally, persons in school and their property (as well as
school property)” (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005, p. 8). Such behaviors include physical violence,
verbal violence, threatening acts, weapon use, damaging and stealing property, and sexual
harassment (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Victimization and school bullying include repeated
exposure to physical and emotional harm from more powerful students on campus (Jeong, Kwak,
Moon, & San Miguel, 2013). Although the prevalence of victimization and school bullying has
varied in empirical studies, research has indicated that many children have been victims of
school bullying (Jeong et al., 2013). Hong and Espelage (2012) argued that “the emergence and
continuation of bullying perpetration and victimization are best explained through the social–
ecological model given the complexity of how individual characteristics such as aggression are
largely influenced by social contextual environments that children and adolescents are exposed
to” (p. 318). When measuring violence in schools, it is important to consider that the level of
safety that students feel in school is related to both the subjective perception of bullying and
reports of clearly defined violent behaviors that occur in school (Benbenishty, Astor, & Estrada,
2008).
39
Discriminatory bullying can be defined as a form of victimization and includes
discriminating on the basis of religion or beliefs, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender, race,
or ethnic origin (Elamé, 2013). It has been commonly reported in the bullying research literature
that students are victimized due to the perception that they are associated with a particular group
or category of person (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Discriminatory
bullying may also be multifaceted, and in the case of school-attending homeless youth, may
intersect with additional groups with which they identify to increase their risk of being
victimized (e.g., sexual orientation, race, gender, or disability). For example, research has shown
that 40% of homeless youth are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (Durso & Gates,
2012). In this study, discriminatory bullying refers to the subjective perception of bullying,
meaning students’ feelings of unsafety based on their perception of being bullied based on
discrimination.
Behavioral victimization refers to a wide range of violent victimizing behaviors
(Benbenishty et al., 2008). The optimal way to understand school violence is via a detailed
assessment that includes specific behaviors such as verbal, physical, and sexual victimization
(Benbenishty et al., 2008). Unlike discriminatory bullying, this type of violence is not
necessarily related to a student being a part of a particular group or category. In this study,
behavioral victimization refers to measurable violent behaviors that take place in school, such as
the number of times an individual has been hit or kicked. Unlike discriminatory bullying,
behavioral victimization refers to clearly defined violent behaviors. Both discriminatory bullying
and behavioral victimization are crucial elements in understanding school violence among
school-attending homeless youth, especially a comprehensive and detailed understanding of this
phenomenon.
40
Little is known about school-attending homeless youth and weapon use in school.
However, when examining school violence and victimization, weapon use is another important
dimension to examine for several reasons. Overall, it remains an understudied topic, especially
considering the wide range of weapons available to many students (e.g., guns, knives, etc.; Astor
& Benbenishty, 2018). A meta-analysis investigating the association of weapon carrying with
bullying perpetration and victimization inside and outside of school found that weapon carrying
is significantly associated with both bullying perpetration and victimization (Valdebenito, Ttofi,
Eisner, & Gaffney, 2017). In addition, the research literature is scarce with respect to weapon
involvement among homeless youth. Researchers found that compared to their housed peers,
homeless youth carry weapons more often, especially vulnerable subgroups in the homeless
youth population that perceive a need to carry weapons for protection (Bender, Thompson,
Ferguson, Yoder, & DePrince, 2015). Hence, gaining information about weapon involvement
among school-attending homeless youth in schools may shed light on this issue and could
potentially provide an additional context for intervention.
School as a Context for School Violence among Homeless Youth
Healthy and optimal youth development is rooted in multiple contexts, including the
school environment (Youngblade et al., 2007). Schools are often mentioned in relation to
developmental and socioecological theories as important social agents that influence the life
course and development of individuals. In particular, in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) seminal
ecological systems theory of development, schools are perceived as one of the tiers that influence
an individual’s life. Violence scholars have noted that different contextual factors, such as
schools, provide varying levels of criminal opportunity (Tillyer, Fisher, & Wilcox, 2011).
Specifically, the social development model suggests that a child’s position in the social structure,
41
determined by socioeconomic status, race, gender, and age, has an indirect effect on behavioral
outcomes through its impact on external constraints and socialization processes (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996). School-attending homeless youth are uniquely positioned based on their
socioeconomic status, family structure, race, and gender.
Examining school violence through the prism of an integrational framework of ecological
and social development theories suggests that violence that occurs in school has an impact on
developmental processes during childhood and adolescence, and is related to positive or
problematic behaviors (Catalano, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Catalano & Hawkins,
1996). Based on this framework, children and youth internalize the attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors of social units in which they are embedded or affiliated. Therefore, studying school
violence in the context of homeless youth, who are especially vulnerable to victimization and
violence, will highlight their needs and have implications for policy makers, school districts, and
future research.
Current Study
This study addresses the gap in the empirical literature on school victimization, school-
attending homeless youth, and schools. Specifically, this study explores school violence and
safety (discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, weapon involvement) among various
subgroups of homeless students (nonsheltered, sheltered, living with family and friends, living
with another family) and compared to their nonhomeless peers. This is the first time such an
analysis has been conducted with a statewide representative sample. In addition, the role of
homelessness is examined in the context of school victimization and safety, allowing an
examination of the role of homelessness status in school violence while controlling for other
factors. Based on previous victimization literature in other social contexts, it is hypothesized that
42
nonsheltered homeless youth would present higher levels of school violence compared to
nonhomeless students. It is also hypothesized that other subgroups of homeless students would
present higher levels of school victimization compared to their nonhomeless peers. Because this
was the first study to detail differences among homeless subgroups, estimates to the exact
differences between groups and the relationship between homelessness and different types of
violence in school could not be made. However, while considering risk factors and potential
supports, as well as previous literature, it is expected that nonsheltered students would have the
highest rates of violence outcomes among the groups.
Methods
Data and Procedures
The data used in this study are from the ongoing large-scale CHKS conducted by WestEd
on behalf of the California Department of Education. The CHKS is a comprehensive youth risk
behavior and resilience data-collection service that is available to all local education agencies in
California. It was developed in 1999 by WestEd in collaboration with the California Department
of Education (WestEd, 2017). About 85% of schools statewide distribute the survey. The CHKS
is a modular survey instrument with elementary, middle, and high school versions, and includes
a core module and a variety of additional modules that can be administered at the discretion of
each school district. The core module consists of an extensive range of questions, with the
primary focus on assessing student perceptions and experiences related to school climate and
engagement, learning support, and health-related nonacademic learning barriers (physical and
mental health, substance use, bullying and violence, etc.). The CHKS is administered biennially
to fifth-, seventh-, ninth-, and 11th-grade students in schools statewide in California (Hanson &
Kim, 2007). Students who attend school on the day of administration complete surveys;
43
therefore, the information indicates students’ self-reported perceptions (Hanson & Kim, 2007).
In the CHKS questions regarding residency are only included in the high school survey. This is
unfortunate since it is estimated that there are many more homeless students in elementary and
middle schools.
Data used in these analyses are from the academic years 2011–2013 (constituting a
representative sample of California—it is close to a populations sample of 9
th
and 11
th
grades in
California—representing all counties, almost all school districts, and all cities and regions in
California), included only the core module, and focused on the 9th and 11th grades (N =
390,028). Because this is a secondary analysis of California Department of Education data, this
study was deemed exempt and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of
Southern California.
Measurements
Because this study focused on school-attending homeless youth, the U.S. Department of
Education definition of homelessness under the MVA was used. Homeless students were
categorized as follows: students living with friends or relatives; students living in a home with
another family; sheltered homeless students; and nonsheltered homeless students. Students were
asked, “What best describes where you live? A home includes a house, apartment, trailer, or
mobile home.” Students who responded “on the street,” “no fixed housing,” “car or van,” or
“park, campground, or abandoned building” were categorized as nonsheltered homeless students
)n = 2,822). Students who responded “other relative’s home” or “friend’s home” were
categorized as living with friends or relatives (n = 11,940). Students who responded “living in a
home with more than one family” were categorized as living with another family (n = 10,341).
Students who responded “hotel, motel, shelter” or “other transitional or temporary housing” were
44
categorized as sheltered homeless students (n = 2,183). Students who responded that they lived
in “a home with both parents,” “a home with only one parent,” “foster home,” “group care,” or
“waiting placement, migrant housing, or other living arrangements” were classified as
nonhomeless )n = 358,228). In addition, participants were asked about their gender (male or
female), grade level (ninth or 11th), and ethnicity and race (White, Black, Latino, mixed, Native
American, Asian, or Pacific Islander).
Because the focus of the study was violence and safety, and because previous literature
found associations between gang membership and homelessness, gang involvement was included
as a control variable. Participants were asked, “Do you consider yourself a member of a gang?”
Participants who responded “yes” were categorized as gang involved and participants who
responded “no” were categorized as not gang involved.
Three dimensions of school violence were examined—perceived discriminatory bullying,
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement—with the goal of providing nuanced
understanding and a comprehensive picture of these behaviors in school.
Behavioral victimization was measured using six items: “In the past 12 months, have
you: (a) been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit or kicked by someone who wasn’t just kidding around
at school?; (b) been in a physical fight at school?; (c) had mean rumors or lies spread about you
in school?; (d) had sexual jokes, comments or gestures made to you at school?; I been made fun
of because of your looks or the way you talk in school?; and (f) had your property stolen or
deliberately damaged such as your car, clothing or books at school?” Responses were on a 4-
point Likert scale: 0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, and more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha
for these items was .77.
45
Discriminatory bullying was assessed with five items: “In the past 12 months, have you
been harassed or bullied (a) because of your race, ethnicity, or national origin on school
property?; (b) because of your religion on school property?; (c) because of your gender on school
property?; (d) because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were on school property?;
and (e) because of a physical or mental disability on school property?” Responses were on a 4-
point Likert scale: 0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, and more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha
for these items was .76.
Weapon involvement was assessed using three items: “In the past 12 months, (a) did you
carry a gun on school property? (b) did you carry a weapon such as knife or club on school
property?; and (c) have you been threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club at school?” Responses were on a 4-point Likert scale: 0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, and
more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .79.
For the purpose of logistic regression models, all dependent variables were dichotomized
as “never” or “once or more.”
Analysis
The data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 via bivariate and
multivariate analyses. Descriptive statistics and crosstab functions were used to reveal
differences in school violence among different subgroups. This comparison provided an in-depth
picture of school violence and safety among homeless students compared to their nonhomeless
peers. Three logistic analyses were conducted. Five predictors (background variables: gender,
race and ethnicity, grade, and gang; independent variable: homelessness) were fitted to the data
to test the relationship between homelessness and school violence. The logistic regression
analysis was conducted using the binary regression procedure in SPSS. The dependent variables
46
in the three models were discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon
involvement on school grounds. All responses were dichotomized as “never” or “once or more.”
Results
As shown in Table 2.1, the sample was almost evenly split by grade level (ninth and 11th
grades) among almost all groups except for sheltered homeless students and nonsheltered
homeless students (59.7% and 75.4% male, respectively). The results also indicated a racially
and ethnically diverse sample of students across all groups. However, there were distinctions in
the representation of different racial minorities among the groups. Hispanic or Latino students
comprised the largest racial and ethnic group (about 50%) in all subsamples, which is to be
expected in California, because the ethnic distribution of public school students in recent years
consistently has shown Hispanic or Latinx students represent about 50% of all students
(California Department of Education, 2016). This group was highly represented in the “living
with other family” category. Students who were White or Asian were underrepresented in all
homeless subgroups compared to the nonhomeless group. Black, American Indian, Alaska
Native, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and mixed-race students were overrepresented in the
homelessness subgroups. Specifically, Black students were highly represented in the sheltered
and nonsheltered homeless groups compared to nonhomeless students (8.5%, 14.3%, and 3.4%,
respectively). Gang membership was overrepresented in all homeless subgroups compared to the
nonhomeless category (7.0%), especially for sheltered homeless students (29.4%) and
nonsheltered homeless students (57.0%).
Because not much is known about types of school violence among different groups of
homeless students compared to nonhomeless students, it was valuable to explore the prevalence
of these dependent variables in the sample. Table 2.2 shows differences among study groups by
47
outcome. Differences existed among subgroups of homeless students in discriminatory bullying:
23.0% of nonhomeless students reported experiencing discriminatory bullying, whereas students
living with other families (27.3%), students living with a relative or friend (29.0%), sheltered
homeless students (41.7%), and especially nonsheltered homeless students (52.7%) reported
higher rates of discriminatory bullying. These high rates indicate that school-attending homeless
youth experienced more discriminatory bullying because of their race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.
All groups presented high rates of behavioral victimization (more than 60%). Similar to
discriminatory bullying, all homeless subgroups reported higher levels of behavioral
victimization compared to the non-homeless category (61.1%); students living with other
families (66.1%), students living with a relative or friend (68.0%), sheltered homeless students
(70.7%), and especially nonsheltered homeless students (77%) reported higher rates of
behavioral victimization.
Weapon involvement, similarly to the aforementioned outcomes, was also highly
represented in the homeless subgroups, but by a wider margin. Whereas 10.6% of nonhomeless
students reported weapon involvement, 15.3% students living with their families and 19.1%
students living with a friend or a relative reported weapon involvement. For sheltered and
nonsheltered homeless students, the percentages were much higher: 37% and 60.3%,
respectively.
Overall, the logistic regression analyses presented in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 indicated
significant relationships between homelessness and school violence, controlling for background
variables. Additionally, differences in the homeless population indicated that nonsheltered
homeless students had higher rates of school violence, followed by sheltered homeless students,
48
and that students living with a friend or relative or with another family had higher rates of school
violence compared to nonhomeless peers. In fact, this order remained the same across all
outcome variables, indicating that consistent differences existed in the homeless population.
Therefore, homeless youth who attended school were at a higher risk of being bullied based on
discrimination, victimized, and involved with weapons in school. Additionally, being gang
involved (vs. not) was strongly associated with school violence. In most of the models, all other
background variables were statistically significant as well.
The logistic regression analyses presented in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 examined the
hypotheses regarding the relationships between homelessness and school violence, controlling
for background variables.
Discriminatory Bullying
Table 2.3 shows that the model examining the effects of homelessness and background
variables on discriminatory bullying was statistically significant (χ
2
= 5,459.531, df = 12, p <
.001). The partial regression coefficient of homelessness (the coefficient while controlling for
other variables in the regression) was positive and significant. Compared to nonhomeless
students, nonsheltered homeless students (b = 0.916, p < .001, OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.286, 2.734)
were at higher risk of school discriminatory bullying than homeless sheltered students (b =
0.681, p < .001, OR = 1.976, 95% CI = 1.787, 2.185). They were followed by homeless students
who lived with a relative or friend (b = 0.256, p < .001, OR = 1.292, 95% CI = 1.234, 1.353) and
homeless students who lived with another family (b = 0.19, p < .001, OR = 1.209, 95% CI =
1.151, 1.27). Specifically, the data showed that being a nonsheltered homeless student increased
the odds of discriminatory bullying on school grounds by about 2.5 times compared to being a
nonhomeless student. Additionally, gang membership (vs. not) also increased the odds of school
49
discriminatory bullying (b = 0.696, p < .001, OR = 2.006, 95% CI = 1.95, 2.064), with a lower
odds ratio than the odds ratio for nonsheltered homeless students. All partial coefficients of the
demographic variables were statistically significant: being in 11th grade versus ninth grade (b = -
0.232, p < .001, OR = 0.793, 95% CI = 0.780. 0.806), being male versus female (b = -0.141, p <
.001, OR = 0.868, 95% CI = 0.854, 0.883), and being Hispanic versus White (b = -0.095, p <
.001, OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.892, 0.928) all decreased the odds of school discriminatory
bullying. For the other minority groups, being Black (b = 0.336, p < .001, OR = 1.4, 95% CI =
1.339, 1.463); Asian (b = 0.227, p < .001, OR = 1.254, 95% CI = 1.219, 1.291); American
Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander (b = 0.246, p < .001, OR = 1.279, 95% CI =
1.22, 1.34); or mixed-race (b = 0.222, p < .001, OR = 1.249, 95% CI = 1.215, 1.284) versus
White increased the odds of school discriminatory bullying. Classification tables evaluate the
predictive accuracy of a logistic regression model. The observed values for the dependent
outcome and the predicted values (at a cutoff value of p = .50) were cross-classified. This model
correctly predicted 77.1% of the cases.
Behavioral Victimization
Table 2.3 also shows the logistic regression model results of the effect of homelessness
and background variables on school behavioral victimization. The results show the model was
statistically significant (χ
2
= 6,344.663, df = 12, p < .001). The partial regression coefficient of
homelessness was positive and significant. The nonsheltered homeless students (b = 0.580, p <
.001, OR = 1.787, 95% CI = 1.609, 1.985) and homeless sheltered students (b = 0.325, p < .001,
OR = 1.384, 95% CI = 1.243, 1.542) demonstrated higher odds ratios compared to nonhomeless
students, followed by homeless students who lived with a friend or relative (b = 0.283, p < .001,
OR = 1.327, 95% CI = 1.27, 1.387) and homeless students who lived with another family (b =
50
0.225, p < .001, OR = 1.252, 95% CI = 1.195, 1.311). Specifically, it showed that being a
nonsheltered homeless student versus a nonhomeless student increased the likelihood of
experiencing behavioral victimization in school 1.78 times, whereas being a homeless sheltered
versus nonhomeless student increased the odds of school behavioral victimization 1.38 times.
Additionally, gang membership (vs. not) increased the odds of school behavioral victimization (b
= 0.530, p < .001, OR = 1.698, 95% CI = 1.648, 1.750). The odds ratio for gang membership was
smaller than that of nonsheltered homeless participants. Most partial coefficients of demographic
variables were statistically significant. Being in 11th grade versus ninth

grade (b = -0.219, p <
.001, OR = 0.803, 95% CI = 0.792, 0.814) and being male versus female (b = -0.396, p < .001,
OR = 0.673, 95% CI = 0.644, 0.683) both decreased the odds of behavioral victimization on
school grounds. Except for Black and American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, or Pacific
Islander groups, the coefficients of racial minority groups were statistically significant. Hispanic
and Asian students were less likely to experience behavioral victimization compared to White
students (Hispanic: b = -0.134, p < .001, OR = 0.875, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.89; Asian: b = -0.303, p
< .001, OR = 0.739, 95% CI = 0.720, 0.758). Racially mixed students were more likely to
experience behavioral victimization compared to White students (b = 0.092, p < .001, OR =
1.096, 95% CI = 1.068, 1.124). The classification table showed that this model correctly
predicted 61.3% of the cases (a value greater than .50 was acceptable).

Weapon Involvement
The model testing weapon involvement on school grounds was statistically significant (χ
2

= 22,389.695, df = 12, p < .001). Table 2.4 shows the logistic regression results of the effect of
homelessness and background variables on the likelihood of weapon involvement in school. The
partial regression coefficient of homelessness was positive and statistically significant.
51
Nonsheltered homeless students (b = 1.68, p < .001, OR = 5.366, 95% CI = 4.867, 5.917) and
sheltered homeless students (b = 1.134, p < .001, OR = 3.109, 95% CI = 2.776, 3.482)
demonstrated higher odds ratios compared to nonhomeless students, followed by homeless
students who lived with a friend or relative (b = 0.593, p < .001, OR = 1.809, 95% CI = 1.708,
1.916) and homeless students who lived with other families (b = 0.410, p < .001, OR = 1.494,
95% CI = 1.399, 1.595). Specifically, it showed that being a nonsheltered homeless student
versus a nonhomeless student increased the odds of weapon involvement in school 5.36 times,
whereas being a homeless sheltered versus nonhomeless student increased the likelihood of
weapon involvement in school 3.11 times. Additionally, gang membership (vs. not) increased the
odds of school weapon involvement (b = 1.742, p < .001, OR = 5.708, 95% CI = 5.539, 5.881).
All partial coefficients of demographic variables were statistically significant and positive except
for grade (11th vs. 9th) and the racial category of Asian versus White, which were significant
and negative, indicating decreased odds of weapon involvement (Grade 11: b = -0.191, p < .001,
OR = 0.826, 95% CI = 0.807, 0.845; Asian: b = -0.433, p < .001, OR = 0.647, 95% CI = 0.617,
0.682). Being male versus female (b = 0.769, p < .001, OR = 2.158, 95% CI = 2.107, 2.211) and
all partial coefficients of other racial minorities (vs. White) increased the odds of weapon
involvement (Black: b = 0.222, p < .001, OR = 1.249, 95% CI = 1.174, 1.33; Hispanic: b =
0.191, p < .001, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.177, 1.245; American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian,
or Pacific Islander: b = 0.249, p < .001, OR = 1.282, 95% CI = 1.201, 1.369; mixed race: b =
0.238, p < .001, OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.66, 1.28). The classification table value showed that this
model correctly predicted 89.7% of the cases.
Overall, the logistic regressions analyses presented in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 indicated
significant relationships between homelessness and school violence, controlling for background
52
variables. Additionally, analyses of subgroups in the homeless population indicated that
nonsheltered homeless students had higher rates of school violence, followed by sheltered
homeless students, and that students who were living with a friend or relative or with another
family had higher rates of school violence compared to their nonhomeless peers. In fact, this
order remained the same across all outcome variables, indicating consistent differences in the
homeless population. Therefore, homeless youth who attend school are at higher risk of being
bullied based on discrimination, victimized, and involved with weapons in school. Additionally,
being gang involved (vs. not) was strongly associated with school violence. In most models, all
other background variables were statistically significant as well.
Based on these results, the hypothesis that nonsheltered homeless youth would present
higher levels of school violence compared to nonhomeless students was supported. The
hypothesis that other subgroups of homeless students would present higher levels of school
victimization compared to their nonhomeless peers was also supported.
Discussion
Previous research has shown that youth who experience homelessness demonstrate higher
rates of victimization relative to nonhomeless youth (Stewart et al., 2004; Toro et al., 2007). The
goals of this study were twofold. The first goal was exploratory in nature and aimed to
epidemiologically investigate school violence rates and differences among groups of school-
attending homeless youth compared to their nonhomeless peers. The sample in this study was
close to a population sample of all 9
th
and 11
th
graders and representative of California. This
study was the first to compare students from different homelessness categories to their
nonhomeless peers regarding school violence. The second goal was to assess the relationship
between homelessness and school violence. This information could be useful to policy makers
53
and service providers who aim to advance beneficial policies for homeless children and youth
and to researchers in the fields of education, youth homelessness, and violence and victimization.
Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral Victimization and Weapon Involvement in school among
homeless students
The first and most striking findings to emerge from the analyses are the incredibly high
rates of school violence, particularly weapon involvement, among school-attending homeless
youth compared to their nonhomeless peers. Specifically, it is important to consider the strong
association between being a homeless student, especially nonsheltered, and the various outcomes
of school violence. These findings demonstrate that the school is a domain in which homeless
students may be vulnerable to violence and should be targeted for intervention. The scope of the
problem, as this study showed, is meaningful for school-attending homeless youth, who are often
assumed to not be a part of the education system. For homeless youth, schools could be the last
social institution they engage with prior to disengaging from all social institutions, resulting in
the worsening of their situation. However, as findings showed, homeless students experience
high rates of violence and fear in school, which could have a detrimental impact on their well-
being and school experience. This could also potentially lead to their disengagement from
schools. Because policies related to students’ homelessness have tended to focus on students’
access and success in schools while disregarding the school experience of these students,
attention should be given to homeless students’ risk of school victimization at the intervention
and policy levels.
Second, the findings show that being a homeless student uniquely contribute to each
domain of school violence, beyond the control variables. This is important because the literature
has documented associations between demographic contexts, such as race, gender, and age, and
54
school violence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). In
particular, the control variable of gang membership was expected to be a strong predictor of high
rates of school violence (Estrada et al., 2016; Petering, Rhoades, Winetrobe, Dent, & Rice,
2017). The findings show that for all homeless groups, but especially nonsheltered and sheltered
homeless students, the association of homelessness with school violence was higher or similar to
the association between gang membership and school violence, demonstrating the unique
contribution of homelessness status to these adverse outcomes. Based on these exploratory
findings, homeless students who are also gang involved are at higher risk of school violence than
homeless students who are not gang involved. Hence, the unique intersection between gang
membership and homelessness in schools should be specifically targeted while aiming to reduce
school violence among homeless students.
Additionally, this study found differences within the homeless population; that is,
between sheltered, doubled up, and nonsheltered school-attending homeless students. Clearly,
and as expected, the findings were more severe for nonsheltered homeless youth. However,
sheltered homeless youth and those who were doubled up also deserve attention. The findings
show that all subgroups were at greater risk of school violence compared to nonhomeless
students, and might require different intervention responses. Additionally, sheltered homeless
students and doubled-up students might go under the radar and should be identified to provide
services and intervention. The differences also indicate the role of support, because homeless
students who were doubled up were at lower risk of school violence than their sheltered and
nonsheltered peers.
Different Types of School Violence among Homeless Students
55
The findings suggest that each domain of school violence (discriminatory bullying,
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement) is different and worthy of exploration in the
context of homeless students. This investigation of the three domains highlighted nuances of the
unique experiences of school-attending homeless youth. The fact that homeless students
experienced high rates of bullying based on discrimination compared to their nonhomeless peers
shows that students who are homeless are not necessarily targeted for bullying based on their
homelessness status, but also for identifying with other marginalized groups. As previously
presented, the literature has shown that homeless students are often part of other marginalized
groups (e.g., sexual and racial minority groups). Because homeless students often have multiple
intersecting identities that increase their vulnerability to discriminatory bullying, and because
this study showed they are at higher risk of experiencing such bullying, identifying areas for
intervention that are rooted in policies such as the ESSA (2015) and Title IX (1972) that address
issues of discrimination and equal access to education could provide an additional avenue for
policy-based intervention, other than the MVA.
This study found a greater prevalence of behavioral victimization for homeless students
than nonhomeless students, but the differences were small. This is likely related to the fact that
behavioral victimization is prevalent among all high school students in California (more than
60%). Because this was a statewide sample, this has implications for all students, not merely
homeless students. The high rates of behavioral victimization experienced by many students
indicate that further intervention and support in schools should be geared toward address
victimization in schools. It also may mean that the students who are doubled up may actually
present similar rates of victimization to their nonhomeless peers, and that the support that they
might be receiving by family members or friends may buffer the risk of being victimized to some
56
extent. These lesser differences between victimization rates might also be related to the
dichotomization of the outcome as “never” vs. “once or more.” Additional studies are required to
address the wide range of severity and frequency of these behaviors, which may yield additional
information for policy design.
Weapon involvement presents the most noteworthy and unexplored domain of school
violence for school-attending homeless youth; this study revealed strong positive associations
between homelessness status and weapon involvement. In one of the first studies to explore
weapon involvement for homeless youth, these preliminary results illustrate the pressing need to
address the high risk of homeless youth to be involved with weapons. Weapon violence is one of
the most extreme forms of violence, and should be addressed and included in investigations of
victimization among homeless youth. Specifically, for school-attending homeless youth and the
schools that serve them, this finding raises important considerations for planning and providing
supportive mechanisms to meet the needs of homeless students. This also might have schoolwide
implications because the presence of weapons in school increases perceptions of feeling unsafe
among all students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). When considering the implications of these
findings, note that this study confirmed that homeless students also experience high rates of
victimization and discriminatory bullying. It could be that weapons serve as a means of self-
defense to cope with violence (Bender et al., 2015). If schools address and respond to violence in
school, and discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization in particular, homeless students
might be less involved with weapons.
Race, Gender and Age among Homeless Students in the Context of School Violence
Findings regarding racial minorities as represented in the homeless students’ groups, are
consistent with former research (Child Trends Databank, 2015). The findings show that Black
57
and mixed-race students are overrepresented (higher percentage) in the homeless sub-groups,
White and Asian students being underrepresented (lower percentage) in the homeless sub-
groups, and Hispanic students having the same percentage when compared to the population in
California. As previously mentioned, in California, Hispanic and Latinx students represent the
majority of the students in the public school system and hence were expected to be highly
represented in the homeless group. These findings indicate that schools and districts should be
highly aware of those disparities, and should provide whole-school interventions to address
issues of race and ethnicity to raise awareness and provide a supportive environment.
Additionally, gender and age played an important role in each of the outcomes. For both
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, girls were more likely to report being
bullied or being victimized based on discrimination. This is consistent with some literature
showing that female students are more likely to report being the victim of bullying or
victimization, whereas boys are more likely to report being the bully (Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher,
2009). However, a large body of research has shown that boys tend to report more perpetration
and victimization than girls in schools, yet this is dependent on the types of victimization being
investigated. Boys tend to report higher rates of physical victimization and girls tend to report
higher rates of social victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). Because this was the first study
to explore school violence across subgroups of homeless students compared to their nonhomeless
peers, all types of school behavioral victimizations were collapsed. Future studies should focus
on gender differences while investigating types of behavioral victimization. Regarding the
outcome of weapon involvement, boys were more likely to be involved with weapons in school,
which is consistent with previous literature (Valdebenito et al., 2017). Additionally, and
consistent with previous research, which indicated that younger students report more
58
victimization than their older peers (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018), students in ninth grade were
more likely to report higher rates of discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and
weapon involvement in school than those in 11th grade.
School as a Context for Homeless Students
For all homeless students, school can provide stability and a place to address their risky
behaviors, and preventing their disengagement from school could result in better academic
achievement and success. These results are relevant to ongoing theoretical and policy discussions
regarding both education and homelessness. Although they have considered theories about the
role of schools, these discussions have often neglected to include homeless youth and the role of
school in their lives; in addition, much of the homelessness literature has neglected schools. This
study’s findings show that multiple violence behaviors take place in school and during the school
day, which has implications for both students and schools. In particular, the literature
systematically has shown that schools are important social agents regarding risk and protective
factors for their students. Given recent amendments under the ESSA (2015) to include
socioemotional learning indicators while assessing schools, and the national effort to prevent and
end homelessness (Opening Door, 2010), more funding and resources are expected to be
available and channeled into supporting schools in addressing violence and bullying. This is
likely extremely relevant to school-attending homeless youth and the schools that serve them.
Ensuring access to school is crucial but not sufficient to meet the goal of eliminating barriers to
education for homeless youth, most notably school violence. The need to advance policies,
research, and practice for school-attending homeless youth is urgent.
59
Limitations and Future Research
It should be noted that this study has limitations. First, these data were cross-sectional, so
causality cannot be implied. Homelessness might have been overreported or underreported,
specifically regarding the category of “living with another family,” which does not imply
whether the students were hosting a family or being hosted by a family. This might also explain
why this category had the lowest rates of school violence compared to the other groups.
However, this can also be attributed to support provided by a hosting family. Additionally, this
study explored differences between dichotomous outcomes. This might have contributed to
smaller differences in the outcome of behavioral victimization. Because this is one of the few
studies to focus on the problem of school violence with respect to homeless students, continued
research in this arena is needed to strengthen our understanding of student homelessness, school
violence, and the role of schools in this context. Future work using multilevel data could shed
light on the school context for homeless students while adding a significant dimension to our
understanding. In particular, analyzing differences between student-level and school-level
findings could point to different and complementary types of interventions. Future studies that
explore the role of supportive schools or positive school climate regarding school violence
among homeless students would also be useful, especially because this study demonstrated the
magnitude of this problem. Additionally, a more detailed examination of the severity and
frequency of these outcomes among homeless students is needed to identify different
mechanisms of prevention and intervention for homeless students who are at high risk of
experiencing school violence.
60
Conclusions
This study made important contributions to several bodies of literature, including school
and education, homelessness, and violence literatures, while demonstrating the need to explore
intersections and overlapping areas in theory, research, and practice. The findings suggest that
researchers, practitioners, and policy makers should focus on the school context when aiming to
understand victimization among homeless youth. Moreover, this study’s findings indicate the
need for a mutually productive discourse among researchers in the fields of school, education,
and youth homelessness to promote collaborative work in building a new body of knowledge
while stressing the unique situation and needs of homeless students.
This study has several important implications for policy makers. Studies focused on the
MVA (Ausikaitis et al., 2015; Miller, 2011a) have suggested that the current policy does not
sufficiently meet the needs of homeless youth. In addition to the pressing need to improve the
school experience for homeless students by revising the MVA, other current policies could be
revised to acknowledge the context of school violence for homeless students—chiefly, the
accountability requirements under the ESSA. Based on the findings in this study, generating
information about school-attending homeless youth and multiple types of school violence at the
local and state levels could help secure grants, resources, and funding not specifically earmarked
for the issue of homelessness and that could benefit the entire school community. Because
schools with high rates of homeless students often struggle with funding and resources,
expanding the framework of thinking about student homelessness, and gathering data at the local
and state levels could establish and document the urgent need to support schools in their
important work with homeless students.

61
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Astor, R. A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research?
Educational Researcher, 39, 69–78. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357619
Ausikaitis, A. E., Wynne, M. E., Persaud, S., Pitt, R., Hosek, A., Reker, K., … Flores, S. (2015).
Staying in school: The efficacy of the McKinney–Vento Act for homeless youth. Youth &
Society, 47, 707–726. doi:10.1177/0044118X14564138
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Estrada, J. N. (2008). School violence assessment: A
conceptual framework, instruments, and methods. Children & Schools, 30, 71–81.
doi:10.1093/cs/30.2.71
Bender, K., Thompson, S., Ferguson, K., Yoder, J., & DePrince, A. (2015). Risk detection and
self ‐protection among homeless youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 352–
365. doi:10.1111/jora.12123
Blake, J. J., Lund, E. M., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O.-M., & Benz, M. R. (2012). National prevalence
rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School
Psychology Quarterly, 27, 210–222. doi:10.1037/spq0000008
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
California Department of Education (2016). Demographics. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/
62
Canfield, J. P. (2014). The McKinney-Vento Act Implementation Scale: A second validation
study. Journal of Children and Poverty, 20, 47–64. doi:10.1080/10796126.2014.918026
Catalano R.F. & Hawkins J.D., (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial
behavior. In: Hawkins J.D., editor. Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories.
Cambridge Univ. Press; New York: pp. 149–197
Catalano, R. F., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of
bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development
Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252–261. doi:10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2004.tb08281.x
Chen, X., Thrane, L., Whitbeck, L. B., Johnson, K. D., & Hoyt, D. R. (2007). Onset of conduct
disorder, use of delinquent subsistence strategies, and street victimization among
homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1156–1183.
doi:10.1177/0886260507303731
Child Trends Databank. (2015). Homeless children and youth: Indicators of child and youth
well-being. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/112_Homeless_Children_and_Youth.pdf
Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by
homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public
Health, 92, 773–777. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.5.773
Cunningham, M. K., Harwood, R., & Hall, S. (2010). Residential instability and the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Children and Education Program: What we know, plus gaps in research.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
63
Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of
service providers working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth who are
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute.
Edidin, J. P., Ganim, Z., Hunter, S. J., & Karnik, N. S. (2012). The mental and physical health of
homeless youth: A literature review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 354–
375. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0270-1
Elamé, E. (2013). Discriminatory bullying: A new intercultural challenge. New York, NY:
Springer.
Estrada, J. N., Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A statewide study of gang
membership in California secondary schools. Youth & Society, 48, 720–736.
doi:10.1177/0044118X14528957
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub L. No. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. ch. 28 § 1001 et seq. 20 U.S.C. ch.
70 (2015)
Ferguson, K. M., & Xie, B. (2012). Adult support and substance use among homeless youths
who attend high school. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41, 427–445. doi:10.1007/s10566-
012-9175-9
Hall, R. A. (2007). Homeless students and the public school system. Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, 73(3), 9. Retrieved from:
https://brainmass.com/file/1448421/Action+Research+Fosters+Empowerment+and+Lear
ning+Communities.pdf#page=10
Hallett, R. E., Skrla, L., & Low, J. (2015). That is not what homeless is: A school district’s
journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and economically displaced children and
64
youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 671–692.
doi:10.1080/09518398.2015.1017859
Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: The
psychometric properties of the Healthy Kids Survey (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2007–No. 034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory West.
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2016a). Stealing and being stolen from: Perpetration of
property offenses and property victimization among homeless youth—A systematic
review. Youth & Society, 48, 265–300. doi:10.1177/0044118X13490763
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2016b). Sexual risk behaviors, sexual offenses, and sexual
victimization among homeless youth: A systematic review of associations with substance
use. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17, 468–489. doi:10.1177/1524838015584371
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311–322.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Hudson, A. L., Nyamathi, A., Greengold, B., Slagle, A., Koniak-Griffin, D., Khalilifard, F., &
Getzoff, D. (2010). Health-seeking challenges among homeless youth. Nursing Research,
59, 212–218. doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181d1a8a9
Hyatt, S., Walzer, B., & Julianelle, P. 2014. California ’s homeless students: A growing
population. Sacramento, CA: California Homeless Youth Project. Retrieved from
http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/CaliforniasHomelessStudents_AGrowing
Population.pdf
65
Jeong, S., Kwak, D.-H., Moon, B., & San Miguel, C. (2013). Predicting school bullying
victimization: Focusing on individual and school environmental/security factors. Journal
of Criminology, 2013, 401301. doi:10.1155/2013/401301
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. §
11301 et seq. (1987).
Miller, P. M. (2011a). An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the
homeless education situation. Educational Policy, 25, 424–450.
doi:10.1177/0895904809351692
Miller, P. M. (2011b). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of
Educational Research, 81, 308–337. doi:10.3102/0034654311415120
Moore, H. (2017, November). School-attending homeless youths ’ substance use off and on
school grounds: A California-wide comparison study. Oral presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Atlanta, GA.
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
Mottet, L., & Ohle, J. (2006). Transitioning our shelters: Making homeless shelters safe for
transgender people. Journal of Poverty, 10, 77–101. doi:10.1300/J134v10n02_05
Murphy, J. F., & Tobin, K. J. (2011). Homelessness comes to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3),
32–37.
National Center for Homeless Education. (2016). Federal data summary school years 2012-13 to
2014-15: Education for homeless children and youth. Retrieved from
66
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendm
ent2015_FINAL.pdfhttps://nche.ed.gov/downloads/data-comp-1213-1415.pdf
Opening Door (2010). Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Retrieved from:
Peguero, A. A. (2008). Is immigrant status relevant in school violence research? An analysis
with Latino students. Journal of School Health, 78, 397–404. doi:10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2008.00320.x
Petering, R. (2016). Sexual risk, substance use, mental health, and trauma experiences of gang-
involved homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.009
Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Dent, D., & Rice, E. (2017). Violence, trauma, mental
health, and substance use among homeless youth Juggalos. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 48, 642–650. doi:10.1007/s10578-016-0689-5
Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Fulginiti, A., Astor, R., … Kordic,
T. (2013). Homelessness experiences, sexual orientation, and sexual risk taking among
high school students in Los Angeles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 773–778.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.011
Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Patton, R., & Buettner, C. (2010). Prevalence of intimate
partner violence reported by homeless youth in Columbus, Ohio. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1579–1593. doi:10.1177/0886260509354590
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying
involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and
differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283–293.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009
67
Stewart, A. J., Steiman, M., Cauce, A. M., Cochron, B. N., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R.
(2004). Victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder among homeless adolescents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 325–331.
doi:10.1097/00004583-200403000-00015
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about
school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39,
38–47. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357622
Thrane, L. E., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Yoder, K. A. (2006). Impact of family abuse on
running away, deviance, and street victimization among homeless rural and urban youth.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1117–1128. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.008
Tillyer, M. S., Fisher, B. S., & Wilcox, P. (2011). The effects of school crime prevention on
students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel
opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249–277.
doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.493526
Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681-1688 (1972).
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007). Homeless youth in the United States: Recent
research findings and intervention approaches. Retrieved from
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/toward-understanding-homelessness-2007-national-
symposium-homelessness-research-homeless-youth-united-states-recent-research-
findings-and-intervention-approaches
Tyler, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Cauce, A. M. (2004). Risk factors for sexual
victimization among male and female homeless and runaway youth. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 503–520. doi:10.1177/0886260504262961
68
Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M. M., Eisner, M., & Gaffney, H. (2017). Weapon carrying in and out of
school among pure bullies, pure victims and bully-victims: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 33, 62–77. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.004
WestEd (2017). California Healthy Kids Survey. Retrieved from: http://chks.wested.org/
Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based
adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 245–269.
doi:10.1177/0022427808330875
Youngblade, L. M., Theokas, C., Schulenberg, J., Curry, L., Huang, I.-C., & Novak, M. (2007).
Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: A contextual model of
positive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics, 119, S47–S53.
doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2089h

69
Table 2.1. Descriptive Statistics
Nonhomeless Living
with Other
Family
Living
with
Relative or
Friend
Sheltered
Homeless
Nonsheltered
Homeless
n or n (%) n or n (%) n or n (%) n or n (%) n or n (%)
Gender 355,548 10,195 11,706 2,122 2,749
Female 181,917
(51.2)
5,521
(54.2)
6,056
(51.7)
855 (40.3) 676 (24.6)
Male 173,631
(48.8)
4,674
(45.8)
5,650
(48.3)
1,267 (59.7) 2,073 (75.4)
Grade 358,228 10,341 11,940 2,183 2,822
9 187,956
(52.5)
5,771
(55.8)
6,040
(50.6)
1,145 (52.5) 1,496 (53)
11 170,272
(47.5)
4,570
(44.2)
5,900
(49.4)
1,038 (47.5) 1,326 (47)
Race and ethnicity 352,500 10,166 11,724 2,133 2,788
White 85,473 (24.3) 765 (7.5) 1,891
(16.1)
376 (17.6) 430 (15.4)
Hispanic or Latino 171,590
(48.7)
6,266
(61.6)
6,106
(52.1)
1,015 (47.6) 1,343 (48.2)
Black 11,879 (3.4) 305 (3.0) 686 (5.9) 182 (8.5) 400 (14.3)
70
Asian 36,274 (10.3) 1,339
(13.2)
934 (8.0) 169 (7.9) 191 (6.9)
AI, AN, HI, or PI 10,185 (2.9) 524 (5.2) 545 (4.6) 143 (6.7) 141 (5.1)
Mixed 37,099 (10.5) 967 (9.5) 1,562
(13.3)
248 (11.6) 283 (10.2)
Gang membership 333,703 9,249 10,463 1,860 2,340
Yes 23,348 (7.0) 790 (8.5) 1,162
(11.1)
546 (29.4) 1,333 (57)
No 310,355
(93.0)
8,459
(91.5)
9,301
(88.9)
1,007 (43) 1,007 (43)
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander.

71
Table 2.2. Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral Victimization, and Weapon Involvement
Discriminatory
Bullying
Behavioral
Victimization
Weapon
Involvement
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Nonhomeless 75,659 (23.0) 200,015 (61.1) 35,261 (10.6)
Living with other family 2,496 (27.3) 6,006 (66.1) 1,431 (15.3)
Living with relative or friend 2,993 (29.0) 6980 (68.0) 2,023 (19.1)
Sheltered homeless 767 (41.7) 1,271 (70.7) 695 (37.0)
Nonsheltered homeless 1,219 (52.7) 1,764 (77.0) 1,448 (60.3)

72
Table 2.3. Logistic Regressions for Predicting Discriminatory Bullying and Behavioral
Victimization
Discriminatory Bullying Behavioral Victimization
(n = 333,671) (n = 329,113)
b SE OR (95% CI) b SE OR (95% CI)
Constant -1.141* 0.010 0.797* 0.009 2.200
Grade 11 -0.232* 0.008 0.793 (0.780, 0.806) -0.219* 0.007 0.803 (0.792, 0.814)
Male gender -0.141* 0.008 0.868 (0.854, 0.883) -0.396* 0.007 0.673 (0.644, 0.683)
Race and ethnicity
Hispanic -0.095* 0.010 0.910 (0.892, 0.928) -0.134* 0.009 0.875 (0.860, 0.890)
Black 0.336* 0.023 1.400 (1.339, 1.463) -0.001 0.021 0.999 (0.958, 1.042)
Asian 0.227* 0.015 1.254 (1.219, 1.291) -0.303* 0.013 0.739 (0.720, 0.758)
AI, AN, HI, or PI 0.246* 0.024 1.279 (1.220, 1.340) 0.030 0.022 1.030 (0.986, 1.076)
Mixed 0.222* 0.014 1.249 (1.215, 1.284) 0.092* 0.013 1.096 (1.068, 1.124)
Gang member 0.696* 0.014 2.006 (1.950, 2.064) 0.530* 0.015 1.698 (1.648, 1.750)
Homelessness status
Nonsheltered homeless 0.916* 0.046 2.500 (2.286, 2.734) 0.580* 0.054 1.787 (1.609, 1.985)
Sheltered homeless 0.681* 0.051 1.976 (1.787, 2.185) 0.325* 0.055 1.384 (1.243, 1.542)
Living with friend or
relative
0.256* 0.023 1.292 (1.234, 1.353) 0.283* 0.023 1.327 (1.270, 1.387)
Living with other family 0.190* 0.025 1.209 (1.151, 1.270) 0.225* 0.024 1.252 (1.195, 1.311)
Correctly predicted (%) 77.1 61.3
χ
2
(df) 5,459.531* (12) 6,344.663* (12)
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. Reference categories
were Grade 9, female gender, White race and ethnicity, not a gang member, and not homeless.
*p < .001.

73
Table 2.4. Logistic regressions for predicting weapon involvement
Weapon Involvement
(n = 335,859)
b SE OR (95% CI)
Constant -2.878* 0.016 0.056
Grade 11

-0.191* 0.012 0.826 (0.807, 0.845)
Male gender 0.769* 0.012 2.158 (2.107, 2.211)
Race and ethnicity
Hispanic 0.191* 0.014 1.210 (1.177, 1.245)
Black 0.222* 0.032 1.249 (1.174, 1.330)
Asian -0.433* 0.026 0.649 (0.617, 0.682)
AI, AN, HI, or PI 0.249* 0.033 1.282 (1.201, 1.369)
Mixed 0.238* 0.020 1.269 (1.220, 1.320)
Gang member 1.742* 0.015 5.708 (5.539, 5.881)
Homelessness status
Nonsheltered homeless 1.680* 0.05 5.366 (4.867, 5.917)
Sheltered homeless 1.134* 0.058 3.109 (2.776, 3.482)
Living with friend or relative 0.593* 0.029 1.809 (1.708, 1.916)
Living with other family 0.410* 0.033 1.494 (1.399, 1.595)
Correctly predicted (%) 89.2
χ
2
(df)
22,389.695 (12)*
74
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander.
Reference categories were Grade 9, female gender, White race and ethnicity, not a gang
member, and not homeless.
*p < .001.

75
Chapter 3 (Study 2): Role of School Climate in Discriminatory Bullying, Behavioral
Victimization, and Weapon Involvement among Homeless and Nonhomeless Students: An
Individual- and School-Level Analysis

Abstract
This study used an ecological approach to understand the role of school climate in school
violence among both homeless and nonhomeless students. Two state representative subsamples
from the California Healthy Kids Survey (2011–2013) were used: an individual-level sample of
ninth- and 11th-grade students (N = 389,569) and a school-level sample (N = 801). Those two
levels were investigated in order to gain information both at the student level and the holistic
school level to provide a comprehensive picture of the role of school climate and school violence
among homeless and nonhomeless students. Bivariate analyses were used to examine differences
between homeless subgroups as compared to nonhomeless students (nonsheltered homeless
students [n = 2,822], sheltered homeless students [n = 2,179], students living with a relative or
friend [n = 11,917], students living with another family [n = 10,333], and nonhomeless students
[n = 358,001]). Hierarchical logistic regressions were conducted to examine the relationship
between school climate and discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon
involvement at the individual and school levels. Findings showed that adding school-climate
dimensions to the demographic variables contributed significantly to each outcome. At the
student level, partial coefficients showed that safety, positive relationships with adults, and
connectedness were significantly and negatively associated with discriminatory bullying,
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement, with safety being the highest contributor
(i.e., lowest odds ratio). At the school level, all models were significant (p < .001). The partial
76
coefficient of school climate was negative and significantly (p < .001) decreased discriminatory
bullying, behavioral discrimination, and weapon involvement. The results highlight that positive
school climate serves as a protective factor for school-attending homeless youth. Specifically,
enhancing interventions that improve school climate at the school level would benefit homeless
students.

77
Introduction
Between 1.6 million and 2 million youth experience homelessness in the United States
each year. Additionally, the number of students experiencing homelessness in K-12 education
has increased in recent years and is estimated to be about 1.3 million (U.S. Department of
Education, 2016). Homeless youth are at high risk of experiencing violence and victimization in
multiple contexts, including childhood abuse (Ferguson, 2009; Tyler, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Cauce,
2001), street victimization (Chen, Thrane, Whitbeck, Johnson, & Hoyt, 2007), intimate partner
violence (Slesnick, Erdem, Collins, Patton, & Buettner, 2010), and gang involvement (Petering,
2016; Petering & Moore, 2017). Existing literature on homelessness in schools has focused on
policy implementation evaluation (Miller, 2011a), homeless students’ academic achievement
(Miller, 2011b; O’Malley, Voight, Renshaw, & Eklund, 2015), and school-related outcomes such
as absenteeism, attendance, and graduation rates (Fantuzzo, LeBoeuf, Chen, Rouse, & Culhane,
2012; Miller, 2011b). Although research has been limited with regard to school-attending
homeless youth and their school experience, recent research has shown that homeless students
are at higher risk compared to their nonhomeless peers of experiencing violence and
victimization (see Chapter 2; Moore, Benbenishty, Astor, & Rice, 2017) and using substances
(Moore, 2017) in school.
In the past decade, as the body of research regarding homeless youth continued to evolve
(e.g., Edidin, Ganim, Hunter, & Karnik, 2012; Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007), leading
researchers in the area examined the role of protective factors in the context of risk behaviors for
homeless youth (Bender, Thompson, McManus, Lantry, & Flynn, 2007; Milburn et al., 2009).
These studies often used ecological theories that emphasize the importance of supportive social
agencies and functions such as family (Mayock, Corr, & O’Sullivan, 2011), prosocial peers
78
(Milburn et al., 2009), and social networks (Rice, Milburn, & Rotheram-Borus, 2007; Wenzel et
al., 2012). However, schools, for the most part, have remained outside of the research scope in
relation to homeless youths, particularly the role of school climate for homeless students in
relation to school risk behaviors.
In addition to schools being an important understudied context to examine in the lives of
school-attending homeless youth, the education system presents opportunities to intervene and
address the needs of these youths, based on its statutory context. The definition of homelessness
based on the McKinney-Vento Education Act (MVA; 1987; amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015) is a broad definition that includes multiple subgroups of homeless
students, unlike narrower definitions of other offices such as the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Specifically, the definition includes children and youth who live on the
streets, campgrounds, cars, parks, motels, hotels, shelters, or any place not suitable for human
habitation, and students who share housing with other persons due to loss of housing, economic
hardship, or similar reasons (also known as doubled up). 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).
Moreover, most studies that centered on risk behaviors and protective factors among
homeless youth focused on individual-level perspectives and data, potentially due to the fact that
homeless youth too often disengage from large social institutions and hence, group-level data are
hard to obtain. However, school-related research that focuses on both the student and school
levels with regard to risk and protective factors for homeless students may yield important
79
information for intervention and policy advancements, which will have implications for the
school experience and lives of homeless youth.
Increasingly, evidence has suggested that school climate plays a meaningful role in
school-related violence among students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018; Cornell & Huang, 2016),
particularly for students from minority groups (e.g., military-connected students, LGBT students;
De Pedro, Astor, Gilreath, Benbenishty, & Berkowitz, 2016; Kosciw, Greytak, & Diaz, 2009).
Despite growing interest in the social context of homeless youth, current understanding of the
school context is limited in scope. Only a few studies examined the role of school climate for
homeless students, and findings suggested that positive school climate is related to higher
academic achievement (O’Malley et al., 2015). One prior study that focused on nonsheltered
homeless youth found that positive school climate was associated with lower school
victimization (Moore et al., 2017). To date, studies have not examined the role of positive school
climate on the bullying and victimization experiences of multiple subgroups of homeless
students.
This study will examine the role of school climate for homeless students in school
violence behaviors, including discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon
involvement at both the individual student and school levels. The primary goal of this study is to
provide theoretical contributions and empirical evidence for contextual school reform and policy
change to promote safety among homeless students in schools.
Role of Schools and Education Policies for School-Attending Homeless Youth
Empirically based studies focused on the role of school for homeless students have been
scarce, yet the role of school, school climate and education in the context of poverty and low
socioeconomic status has been examined in previous research (Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, &
80
Benbenishty, 2017; Hopson & Lee, 2011). The education system has often been viewed and
documented as providing a major opportunity to exit poverty. An extensive review of the data,
methods, and findings regarding the dynamics of poverty in the United States (Cellini,
McKernan, & Ratcliffe, 2008) found that educational acquirement, including high school
graduation and higher education, was positively and significantly correlated with the likelihood
of exiting poverty. These findings increase the importance of understanding the high school
experience of school-attending homeless youth, because positive school climate may benefit
their school experience and support their success in school and as a result, provide a better
chance of existing the homelessness cycle.
At the policy level, awareness of student homelessness was established with the passage
of the MVA. It is the primary significant federal response to the issue to date (Miller, 2011a;
National Coalition for the Homeless, 2016). The act addresses the educational needs of students
who meet the act’s definition of being homeless, including immediate enrollment, maintenance
of attendance, and the provision of equal opportunities for education (National Association for
the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, 2008). The main goal of the policy is to
eliminate barriers to education for homeless students, which include lack of access to the
education system and resources and capacity to succeed in school due to difficult conditions and
ongoing oppression. Notwithstanding the importance of this policy, many issues concerning
homeless students remain unexplored, especially issues not directly related to access to school,
such as the school experience of homeless students, school violence and the role of school
climate.
In addition to recent amendments to the MVA, the passage of ESSA (2015) also included
a requirement that states select a nonacademic indicator to assess students’ success in school and
81
hold schools accountable. This requirement relates to students’ socioemotional development and
the inclusion of new measures to assess student progress. In September 2016, the California State
Board of Education approved state and local key elements of a new accountability system to
evaluate schools and districts (California Department of Education, 2016). The state and local
indicators now consist of socioemotional learning (SEL) indicators, including chronic
absenteeism, suspensions, and school climate. This pioneering step is of particular importance to
school-attending homeless youth for two major reasons. First, SEL programs were found to be
extremely effective in decreasing conduct problems and addressing mental and behavioral health.
In a comprehensive meta-analysis, Durlak and colleagues (2011) found that students who
participated in SEL programs demonstrated significantly fewer conduct problems and lower
levels of emotional distress compared to students in control groups. Thus, this could potentially
mark a new era in which, due to the accountability requirement, schools and districts will receive
funding and resources to address issues based on these indicators. This provides an additional
motive to investigate the school experience of school-attending homeless youth, because they
might benefit from such programs and schools will be encouraged more than ever to address
such issues.
School Climate and Victimization: School as a Context for Homeless Students
Research has shown that positive school climate is correlated with less violence and
victimization in schools (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Espelage & Swearer, 2003), reduced
delinquency and substance use (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013; Zullig,
Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010), prevention of dropout (Kotok, Ikoma, & Bodovski, 2016).
Regarding academic achievement, research also showed that positive school climate can
contribute to higher academic outcomes (Berkowitz et al., 2017). An understanding of school
82
climate and the role of schools in relation to school-attending homeless youth could help address
the needs of homeless students, going beyond the mandatory requirements of the MVA. The new
policies under the ESSA (2015), such as the mandatory inclusion of SEL and school climate
indicators, create a unique policy window to address homeless students’ needs and advance
research, theory, and policies regarding how we think about homeless students and the schools
that serve them.
In considering the definition of school climate, there is an absence of a clear accordance
among researchers with respect to the definition of school climate; research has suggested that
significant differences exist in climate definitions and measurements (Astor & Benbenishty,
2018; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Berkowitz et al., 2017). Still, school climate can be roughly
defined as the “quality and character of school life. School climate is based on patterns of
students’, parents’ and school personnel’s experience of school life and reflects norms, goals,
values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational
structures” (National School Climate Council, 2016, para. 1). A research review of educational
literature found that although the dimensions of school climate may not be agreed upon, several
dimensions draw wider consensus. First, the majority of studies examining climate showed that a
supportive and caring approach from teachers is a crucial dimension that should be included in
school climate research (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Additionally, a sense of connectedness and
meaningful participation or engagement with the school, and a sense of safety, are central
dimensions of school climate (Berkowitz et al., 2017).
Previous research found that school-attending homeless youths are at high risk of
experiencing school victimization, discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and
weapon involvement in school (see Chapter 2; Moore et al., 2017). In particular, weapon
83
involvement was found to be extremely prevalent among homeless students across all categories
of homelessness, and especially nonsheltered homeless students, 60% of whom reported being
involved with weapons in school compared to 10% among nonhomeless students (see Chapter
2). These alarming numbers suggest that school-attending homeless youth are involved in
extreme forms of violence in schools and stress the importance of learning about the school
context to better support these students and their peers. Additionally, it is fundamental to
consider the fact that students who are gang members are more likely to experience school
violence, and that previous literature indicated an intersection between youth homelessness and
gang membership (see Chapter 2; Petering, 2016).
In addition, prior research on homeless youth demonstrated that positive relationships and
positive points of contact decrease risk for homeless youth, whereas negative interaction with
socializing agents increases their risk (Milburn et al., 2009). Milburn and colleagues (2009)
established the risk amplification and abatement model for homeless youth, positing that among
several protective factors, school attendance and positive engagement with peers decreased risk
behaviors. Yet the role of school climate remains fundamentally unexplored, excluding one study
that found that positive school climate is associated with less school victimization for
nonsheltered homeless youth (Moore et al., 2017).
Beyond the Individual: Understanding the School Context for Homeless Students
This study used a socioecological framework based on the theoretical perspective
developed by Benbenishty and Astor (2005), which places schools, rather than the individual
student, at the center of investigation. Benbenishty and Astor (2005) suggested that schools are
entrenched in nested contexts. They posited that multiple factors are associated with students’
behaviors and academic outcomes. Individual students are nested in classrooms, and classrooms
84
are nested in neighborhoods and districts, which are nested in a society. When aiming to
understand the role of schools for homeless youths, the dynamic and ecological environment of
students should be considered, because various dynamics and factors in the school might affect
their behaviors. Although research on homeless youth has stressed the importance of social
contexts and positive relationships with social agencies, the majority of studies that focused on
risk behaviors among homeless youth or homeless students tended to focus on the individual
level. This study built on this theory, starting with the student level and then exploring the school
level.
Adding schools as a context and unit of analysis is crucial to understanding the role of the
school context for homeless students. Exploring individual experiences provides essential
information on the subjective and personal experience of homeless students in school and the
role of school climate in school violence as perceived at the individual level. However,
information based on the school level may reveal another important layer regarding the school
context for homeless students, by providing information on the schools in which homeless
students are nested (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). This type of investigation can capture the
impact of contextual factors such as school characteristics in terms of the sociodemographic
context and the prevalence of student homelessness and school climate as related to school
violence behaviors. It also could provide the ability to learn about differences between these two
levels, which may expose important contextual evidence and contribute to the literature (Astor &
Benbenishty, 2018). Specifically, it might allow learning about schools not only in the individual
context, but also as a place with a specific role. For instance, previous literature showed that
school-attending homeless youth experience high rates of school discriminatory bullying, school
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement (see Chapter 2). However, school-level
85
information may yield different findings regarding these outcomes and could suggest that
contextual school dynamics play a role that goes beyond the individual level, hence requiring
additional and tailored intervention (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018).
In aiming to advance interventions that support homeless students, this type of
investigation could indicate that different levels (i.e., individual and school levels) may require
various intervention mechanisms. It may also provide new avenues for intervention that would
benefit the school experience and well-being of homeless students, especially because schools
may be the last social institution with which homeless youth engage prior to disengaging from all
social institutions, which may result in the worsening of their conditions while increasing their
risk of experiencing multiple risk behaviors.
Current Study
This study sought to fill the gaps in current studies examining the role of school climate
in school victimization in multiple subgroups of homeless students compared to their
nonhomeless peers. It also aimed to provide new information on the school context of homeless
students from a school-level perspective. This study evaluated and compared school
discriminatory bullying, school behavioral victimization, and school weapon involvement rates
among homeless students and nonhomeless students at the individual and school levels, and
examined relationships between school climate and school violence outcomes at both levels.
Drawing from research on the victimization of homeless students at the individual level, it
hypothesized (Hypothesis 3.1) that all groups of homeless students would present higher rates of
victimization than nonhomeless students. Moreover, based on the breadth of research on school
climate and school violence, it was expected (Hypothesis 3.2) that a positive school climate
would be associated with reduced victimization rates among all homeless subgroups.
86
Additionally, the investigation was expanded to include the school level. The following research
questions were posed: (a) What is the relationship between demographic and background
variables (i.e., homelessness and gang involvement) and school-based discriminatory bullying,
behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement at the school level? Based on previous
literature it could be expected that schools with higher rates of homeless students would have
higher rates of school violence. (b) What is the relationship between school climate and school-
based discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement, while
controlling for demographic and background variables (i.e., homelessness and gang
involvement) at the school level? Based on previous literature it could be expected that schools
with positive school climate would present lower rated of school victimization.
Several objectives guided this study. First, this study evaluated associations between
multiple components of school climate and school violence among homeless and nonhomeless
students at the individual level. Second, this study evaluated the effects of school climate on
victimization among both homeless and nonhomeless students at the individual level. Third, this
study examined associations between school demographics and background variables and school
victimization at the school level. Last, this study examined the role of school climate in school
violence at the school level.
Methods
The data used for this study were from the ongoing large-scale California Healthy Kids
Survey (CHKS) conducted by WestEd. The CHKS is a comprehensive youth risk behavior and
resilience data collection service conducted across all local California education agencies. It was
developed by WestEd in collaboration with the California Department of Education (WestEd,
2017). The CHKS is a modular survey instrument with versions for the elementary, middle, and
87
high school levels, and includes a core module and additional modules that can be administered
at the discretion of each school district. The core module, which is included in this study,
consists of an extensive range of questions, with a primary focus on assessing student
perceptions and experiences related to school climate and engagement, learning support, and
health-related, nonacademic learning barriers (physical and mental health, substance use,
bullying and violence, etc.). The CHKS is administered biennially, to fifth-, seventh-, ninth-, and
11th-grade students in schools statewide (Hanson & Kim, 2007). The collected information
indicates students’ self-reported perceptions (Hanson & Kim, 2007). Data for these analyses
were from the academic years 2011–2013 (a representative sample of California) and focused on
the ninth and 11th grades (In the CHKS questions regarding residency are only included in the
high school survey). Two subsamples, based on the individual (student) and school levels, were
employed. For this study, only schools with at least 10 participants who responded to the survey
were included in the analysis, resulting in samples of 801 schools and 389,569 students. The
students from the excluded schools were not included in the analysis at the individual level.
Individual Level
Demographic variables. Participants were asked about their gender (male or female),
grade level (ninth or 11th), and ethnicity and race (White, Black, Latinx, mixed, Asian, Pacific
Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian). Due to low numbers in the
sample, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander were coded as
one variable.
Background variables.
Homelessness. The U.S. Department of Education definition of homelessness under the
MVA was used. Homeless students were categorized as follows: students living with friends or
88
relatives; students living in a home with another family; sheltered homeless students; and
nonsheltered homeless students. Students were asked, “What best describes where you live? A
home includes a house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home.” Students who responded “on the
street,” “no fixed housing,” “car or van,” or “park, campground, or abandoned building” were
categorized as nonsheltered homeless students. Students who responded “other relative’s home”
or “friend’s home” were categorized as living with friends or relatives. Students who responded
“living in a home with more than one family” were categorized as living with another family.
Students who responded “hotel, motel, or shelter” or “other transitional or temporary housing”
were categorized as sheltered homeless students. Students who responded that they lived in a
“home with both parents,” “home with only one parent,” “foster home,” or “group care,” or were
“waiting for placement, migrant housing, or other living arrangements” were classified as
nonhomeless.
Given the extant literature on gang involvement and violence, gang involvement was
included in the model as background variable. This variable was included because gang
involvement has been associated with high rates of violence and the goal of the study was to
learn about the unique contribution of homelessness to school violence, beyond other
background variables. Participants who responded affirmatively to the question “Do you
consider yourself a member of a gang?” were categorized as gang involved.
Independent variables. School climate dimensions were included to explore the role of
school climate for homeless students. These dimensions were derived from previously
established indexes of school climate and included school connectedness, meaningful
participation, positive relationships with adults in school, and safety (Berkowitz et al., 2017; De
Pedro et al., 2016).
89
School connectedness was measured using three items. Participants were asked “How
strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your school: (a) I feel
close to people at this school, (b) I am happy to be at this school, and (c) I feel like I am part of
this school.” Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neither
disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for these items indicated a strong
relationship (α = .82).
Positive relationships with adults in school were measured via six items. Participants
were asked “At my school there is a teacher or adult who: (a) really cares about me, (b) notices
when I am not there, (c) listens to me when I have something to say, (d) tells me when I do a
good job, (e) wants me to do my best, and (f) believes I will be a success.” Responses were on a
5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly
agree. Cronbach’s alpha for these items indicated a strong relationship (α = .90).
To measure meaningful participation, three items were used. Participants were asked to
indicate their agreement with the following statements: “At school, (a) I do interesting activities,
(b) I help decide things like class activities or rules, and (c) I do things that make a difference.”
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .77.
Safety was measured using one item. Participants were asked “How strongly do you
agree or disagree with the following statement about your school? (a) I feel safe in my school.”
Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, agree, or strongly agree.
90
Outcome measures. Three dimensions of school violence were included in the analysis:
school behavioral victimization, school discriminatory bullying, and weapon involvement in
school.
Behavioral victimization was assessed with six items: “In the past 12 months, have you:
(a) been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit or kicked by someone who wasn’t just kidding around at
school?; (b) been in a physical fight at school?; (c) had mean rumors or lies spread about you in
school?; (d) had sexual jokes, comments or gestures made to you at school?; (e) been made fun
of because of your looks or the way you talk in school?; and (f) had your property stolen or
deliberately damaged such as your car, clothing or books at school?” Responses were on a 4-
point Likert scale: 0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, or more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha for
these items was .77.
Discriminatory bullying was measured with five items: “In the past 12 months, have you
been harassed or bullied on school property because of (a) your race, ethnicity, or national
origin?; (b) your religion?; (c) your gender?; (d) you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you?;
and (e) a physical or mental disability?” Responses were on a 4-point Likert scale: 0 times, 1 or 2
times, 3 or 4 times, or more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .76.
Weapon involvement was assessed via three items: “In the past 12 months, did you (a)
carry a gun on school property? or (b) carry a weapon such as knife or club on school property?”
In addition, participants were asked: “In the past 12 months, have you been threatened or injured
with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club at school?” Responses were on a 4-point Likert scale:
0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, or more than 4 times. Cronbach’s alpha for these items was
.79.
91
For logistic regression models, all dependent variables were dichotomized as never or
once or more.
School Level
At the school level, 801 schools were included in the analysis. Only schools with at least
10 participating students were included. Individual data were aggregated to the school level; that
is, the average of the values of each variable from the individual level was computed for each
school. Variables dichotomized and coded as 0 or 1 at the individual level yielded the percentage
of students in each school that reported a given variable. For example, a variable indicating
homelessness at the individual level was aggregated at the school level to produce the percentage
of homeless students for each school.
Demographic variables. Similar to the individual level, the school-level analysis
included sociodemographic variables of racial and ethnic groups, gender, and grade level in each
school
Background variables.
Percentage of homelessness in school. Average percentage of each homeless subgroup
in schools was very low (nonsheltered: 0.77%, sheltered: 0.56%, living with a relative or friend:
4.1%, living with another family: 2.7%). Therefore, all homeless subgroups were collapsed into
one group, which had an overall prevalence of 8.1% in schools.
Percentage of gang members. The background variables also included the prevalence of
gang members in school.
Independent variable. At the school level, correlations between dimensions of
aggregated data on school climate (connectedness, meaningful participation, positive
relationships, and safety) were high and ranged from .58 to .78. Cronbach’s alpha for these items
92
indicated a strong relationship (α = .82). Because the correlations were high and could lead to
high collinearity, which would bias the findings, they were summed into one variable, school
climate. Therefore, the aggregated school climate variable indicated the mean school climate for
each school.
Outcome variables. Similar to the individual level, the school-level analysis included the
outcome variables of discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon
involvement. Each variable at the individual level was dichotomized. Because the unit of
analysis was the school, aggregated data for each school was computed, producing the
percentage of students in each school who reported discriminatory bullying, behavioral
victimization, and weapon involvement. Percentage of weapon involvement in school was highly
skewed; therefore, a log transformation was performed.
Analysis
The aim of the current study was to determine the impact of school climate on school
violence behaviors among both homeless and nonhomeless students. The data were analyzed
with SPSS version 21 and Stata for both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Descriptive
statistics and crosstab functions were used to reveal differences in school violence and school
climate at the individual and school levels. At the individual level, a hierarchical logistic
regression was conducted for each dependent variable (behavioral victimization, discriminatory
bullying, and weapon involvement). To adjust for the complex nested structure of data (students
within schools), data were analyzed via a Stata procedure that adjusts the standard error. In the
first step, only the demographic and background variables were entered in the model (gender,
grade, race, homelessness, and gang involvement). In the second step, the four components of
school climate were added to the regression.
93
At the school level, a linear hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. Aggregated
data based on the same variables at the individual level were included. In the first step, only the
demographic and background variables were entered in the model. In the second step, the
measure of school climate was added to the regression. The dependent variables were percentage
of students in each school reporting behavioral victimization, discriminatory bullying, and
weapon involvement. Additionally, based on the distribution of the standardized residuals,
residuals greater than an absolute value of 3 (outliers) produced in the linear regression analysis
were excluded from the analyses to not violate the ordinary least squares assumptions of
normality and homoscedasticity. The number of the outliers excluded from the analyses of the
correlation and regression was, at most, 2%.
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was not employed to examine the two units of
analysis for two main reasons. First, conceptually, creating a contrast between the school and
individual student levels, rather than presenting the units as nested within each other, may reveal
contrasts between the two levels and provide some indication of potential characteristics at the
school level and the association between homelessness and school victimization and safety
(Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). Second, from a statistical point of view, the intraclass correlation
(ICC), a popular measure of variance explained by this nesting structure (Huang, 2016), was
computed. In this study, the ICC was .009 for discriminatory bullying, .016 for behavioral
victimization, and .060 for weapon involvement. In other words, the ICC indicated a very small
proportion of variance was the product of the nesting structure, which did not warrant a
multilevel model. Many scholars have suggested that “interpreting the ICC as a means for
determining whether HLM is warranted. If there is a small amount of dependence on the higher-
level groupings, then the independence of observations assumption of single-level regression
94
may not be violated, and thus may be an appropriate technique” (Anderson, 2012, p. 11).
Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, the model was estimated in Stata, adjusting standard
errors to take into account the clustered design of the data. Results were very similar when
estimating the model without adjusting for the clustered design.
Results
Individual Level
As shown in Table 3.1, the sample was almost evenly split by grade level and gender.
The sample was also ethnically and racially diverse, with Hispanic students being highly
represented (49%) as expected in California. The majority of the sample reported not being a
member of a gang (92.4%). Homelessness was distributed as follows, in descending order:
92.9% were nonhomeless students (n = 358,001), 3.1% were living with friends or relatives (n =
11,917), 2.7% were living in a home with another family (n = 10,333), 0.6% were sheltered
homeless students (n = 2,179); and 0.7% were nonsheltered homeless students (n = 2,822). It is
important to note that previous research that focused on homeless students, using the same
sample, indicated that homeless students reported higher rates of gang membership than
nonhomeless students, especially nonsheltered homeless students (see Chapter 2). Regarding the
outcome variables, the majority of the sample (61.6%) reported experiencing behavioral
victimization in school, 23.6% reported experiencing discriminatory bullying, and 11.5%
reported weapon involvement in school. A previous study on subgroups of homeless students
showed that across all groups, homeless students were more likely to experience behavioral
victimization, discriminatory bullying, and weapon involvement in school, whereas nonsheltered
homeless students presented the most adverse outcomes, followed by sheltered homeless
95
students, students living with relatives or friends, and students living with another family (see
Chapter 2).
The descriptive results regarding school climate showed that the mean dimensions of
school connectedness (M = 10.59), positive relationships with adults in school (M = 17.57), and
safety (M = 3.55) were all higher than the midpoint of the range, indicating that on the average,
these students felt connected to school, experienced positive relationships with adults in school,
and felt safe in school. The dimension of meaningful participation was lower than the midpoint
of the range (M = 6.69), indicating that on the average, these students did not feel that they
meaningfully participated in school. One study that examined school climate among
nonsheltered homeless students indicated that homeless students report lower means of school
climate (Moore et al., 2017).
Hierarchical logistic regressions. The findings at the student level supported the
hypotheses of the study. Regarding Hypothesis 3.1, homeless students were more likely to
experience behavioral victimization, discriminatory bullying, and weapon involvement in school
compared to their nonhomeless peers, while controlling for demographic, background, and
school climate variables. Regarding Hypothesis 3.2, the findings indicated that as positive school
climate increased (i.e., students felt safe, had positive relationships with adults in school, and felt
connected to school), then school violence outcomes decreased, while controlling for
demographic, background, and other school climate variables. Therefore, when homeless
students were in schools with more positive school climate, they were less likely to experience
discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement.
Discriminatory bullying. Table 3.2 shows the results of the hierarchical logistic
regression of discriminatory bullying. In the first step of the regression, which included
96
demographic variables, gang membership, and homelessness status, the model was statistically
significant (χ
2
[12] = 4,815.302, p < .001). The partial regression coefficients showed that boys
(compared to girls) and 11th graders (compared to ninth graders) were less likely to experience
discriminatory bullying (OR = 0.864, 95% CI = 0.847, 0.881; OR = 0.788, 95% CI = 0.772,
0.805, respectively). Other than Hispanic students, all other racial and ethnic groups were more
likely to experience discriminatory bullying in school compared to White students, especially
Black students (OR = 1.397, 95% CI = 1.309, 1.490). Gang members were more likely than
nongang members to experience discriminatory bullying (OR = 1.944, 95% CI = 1.878, 2.013).
All subgroups of homeless students were more likely to be bullied based on discrimination than
their nonhomeless peers, with nonsheltered homeless students at the highest risk of experiencing
discriminatory bullying (OR = 2.609, 95% CI = 2.367, 2.877), followed by sheltered homeless
students (OR = 2.054, 95% CI = 1.849, 2.281), students living with a relative or friend (OR =
1.272, 95% CI = 1.211, 1.336), and students living with another family (OR = 1.212, 95% CI =
1.148, 1.279).
Adding the school climate dimensions in the second step was statistically significant
(χ
2
[4] = 4,637.668, p < .001), and resulted in a statistically significant model (χ
2
[16] = 9,452.972,
p < .001). Moreover, the likelihood of experiencing discriminatory bullying decreased compared
to the first model for nonsheltered homeless students (OR = 1.852, 95% CI = 1.673, 2.049),
sheltered homeless students (OR = 1.708, 95% CI = 1.534, 1.903), students living with a relative
or friend (OR = 1.201, 95% CI = 1.142, 1.264), and students living with another family (OR =
1.173, 95% CI = 1.110, 1.239), demonstrating that controlling school climate reduces the
likelihood of homeless students experiencing discriminatory bullying in school. Although all
dimensions of school climate were significant, most of the odds ratios were near 1.00 and
97
therefore, their contribution to the model was not high. However, the partial regression
coefficients of safety (OR = 0.839, 95% CI = 0.829, 0.849) and connectedness (OR = 0.953, 95%
CI = 0.949, 0.957) were negative and statistically significant. Feeling safer at school was likely
to decrease the probability of experiencing discriminatory bullying in school by a factor of 0.839.
Behavioral victimization. Table 3.3 shows the results of the hierarchical logistic
regression of behavioral victimization. In the first step of the regression, which included
demographic variables, gang membership and homelessness status, the model was statistically
significant (χ
2
[12] = 5,825.552, p < .001). The partial regression coefficients showed that boys
(compared to girls) and 11th graders (compared to ninth graders) were less likely to experience
behavioral victimization (OR = 0.674, 95% CI = 0.661, 0.687; OR = 0.798, 95% CI = 0.779,
0.818, respectively). Hispanic and Asian students were less likely to experience behavioral
victimization compared to their White peers (OR = 0.875, 95% CI = 0.847, 0.903; OR = 0.737,
95% CI = 0.706, 0.770, respectively). Gang members were more likely than their nongang peers
to experience behavioral victimization (OR = 1.679, 95% CI = 1.626, 1.733). Compared to their
nonhomeless peers, nonsheltered homeless students (OR = 1.824, 95% CI = 1.636, 2.034),
sheltered homeless students (OR = 1.418, 95% CI = 1.260, 1.595), students living with a relative
or friend (OR = 1.334, 95% CI = 1.269, 1.402), and students living with another family (OR =
1.265, 95% CI = 1.207, 1.325) were more likely to experience behavioral victimization.
In the second step of the model, the addition of the school climate dimensions was
significant (χ
2
[4] = 3,799.075, p < .001), resulting in a statistically significant model (χ
2
[16] =
9,624.597, p < .001). Additionally, the odds ratios indicating the likelihood of experiencing
behavioral victimization in school for all subgroups of homeless students decreased
(nonsheltered homeless students: OR = 1.390, 95% CI = 1.243, 1.552; sheltered homeless
98
students: OR = 1.238, 95% CI = 1.097, 1.397; students living with a relative or a friend: OR =
1.269, 95% CI = 1.207, 1.335; and students living with another family: OR = 1.226, 95% CI =
1.170, 1.285). Controlling for school climate reduced the likelihood of experiencing behavioral
victimization in school among homeless students. Although all dimensions of school climate
were significant, most odds ratios were near 1.00; therefore, their contribution to the model was
not high. However, the partial regression coefficient of safety was negative and significant (OR =
0.853, 95% CI = 0.844, 0.863), indicating that feeling safer at school was likely to decrease the
probability of being victimized by a factor of 0.853.
Weapon involvement. Table 3.4 shows the results of the hierarchical logistic regression
of weapon involvement in school. Although both discriminatory bullying and behavioral
victimization yielded similar results, results for weapon involvement featured several
differences. The first step of the regression included demographic variables, gang membership,
and homelessness status. The model was statistically significant (χ
2
[12] = 19,632.175, p < .001).
Unlike discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, the partial regression coefficient
showed boys were more likely than girls to being involved in violence related to weapons in
school (OR = 2.156, 95% CI = 2.099, 2.214). Compared to ninth graders, 11th graders were less
likely to experience weapon involvement in school. All racial and ethnic groups except Asian
students (OR = 0.648, 95% CI = 0.601, 0.698) were more likely than White students to be
involved in weapon violence in school. Gang members were more likely than nongang members
to be involved in weapon violence in school (OR = 5.616, 95% CI = 5.431, 5.808). Compared to
their nonhomeless peers, nonsheltered homeless students (OR = 5.564, 95% CI = 5.076, 6.270),
sheltered homeless students (OR = 3.240, 95% CI = 2.854, 3.679), students living with a relative
99
or friend (OR = 1.773, 95% CI = 1.662, 1.892), and students living with another family (OR =
1.456, 95% CI = 1.354, 1.565) were at greater risk of weapon involvement in school.
In the second step of the model, the addition of the school climate dimensions was
significant (χ
2
[4] = 6,374.821, p < .001) and resulted in a statistically significant model (χ
2
[16] =
26,006.996, p < .001). Additionally, the likelihood of being involved with weapons in school
decreased for all subgroups of homeless students (nonsheltered homeless students: OR = 3.299,
95% CI = 2.946, 3.693; sheltered homeless students: OR = 2.370, 95% CI = 2.068, 2.715;
students living with a relative or friend: OR = 1.612, 95% CI = 1.510, 1.722; and students living
with another family: OR = 1.387, 95% CI = 1.289, 1.492), demonstrating that controlling for
school climate reduced the likelihood of homeless students being involved with weapons in
school. Apart from meaningful participation, all dimensions of school climate were statistically
significant. It is especially important to mention the logistic partial coefficients of safety (OR =
0.767, 95% CI = 0.756, 0.778) and connectedness (OR = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.944, 0.955).
School Level
Table 3.5 shows the descriptive statistics of the school-level findings. To reiterate, the
aggregated data were based on student responses; that is, each percentage represents the mean of
all schools for each variable. For example, regarding gender, the mean of 50.21% is the mean of
the percentage of boys in all participating schools. In this sample, 23.7% of students reported
discriminatory bullying, 61.6% reported behavioral victimization, and 15.0% reported weapon
involvement. Considering that this sample represents California, this demonstrates the high
prevalence of each of these outcomes among students in high school and supports previous
research (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). This was the first study to examine the mean percentage
of students who reported experiencing homelessness in school. The average across all schools of
100
the mean of school climate dimensions was 38.2, meaning that the mean of school climate
(which ranged between 28.61 and 45.72) in each school was calculated and then an average
across all schools was computed to achieve the state mean of school climate across the state.
Correlations between variables. Table 3.6 presents the linear correlations between
demographics, background variables, and school climate variables and each of the dependent
variables. The correlations with percentage of discriminatory bullying and percentage of
behavioral victimization were relatively low, but correlations with the log percentage of weapon
involvement were relatively high. Additionally, the percentage of 11th graders had a negative
relationship with the percentage of discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, but a
positive association with the log percentage of weapon involvement. Percentage of male students
in school had a positive relationship with the dependent variables, especially with the log
percentage of weapon involvement. The percentage of Asian students had a negative relationship
with the percentage of behavioral victimization, especially with the log percentage of weapon
involvement. The percentage of Hispanic students in school had a negative association with the
percentage of discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, but a positive relationship
with the log percentage of weapon involvement. The percentage of gang members in a school
had a positive association with all dependent variables, especially with the log percentage of
weapon involvement (r = .612). Percentage of homeless students in a school had a strong
significant and positive relationship with the log percentage of weapon involvement (r = .540),
but a nonsignificant relationship with percentage of discriminatory bullying. In addition,
discriminatory bullying had a positive and significant but minimal relationship with percentage
of behavioral victimization (r = .079). The mean of positive school climate had a negative and
significant association with all dependent variables, especially the log percentage of weapon
101
involvement (r = -.566) compared to discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization (r = -
.087 and -.148, respectively). The results showed that the correlation of percentage of gang
membership and percentage of homeless students in school was positive and significant but not
high (r = .352, p < .001).
Hierarchical linear regressions. The findings for the research questions are as follows.
The results from the linear regression at the school level showed that an increased percentage of
homeless students in school tended to increase the percentage of gun involvement, while
controlling for demographic, background, and school climate variables. However, an increased
percentage of homeless students in school did not affect the percentage of discriminatory
bullying or behavioral victimization. The results of the linear regression at the school level
showed that an increased mean of positive school climate at school tended to decrease the
percentage of discriminatory bullying, percentage of behavioral victimization, and log
percentage of gun involvement in school, while controlling for demographic and background
variables.
Percentage of discriminatory bullying. Step 1 of the hierarchical linear regression,
presented in Table 3.7, showed that the model that included demographics, gang membership,
and homelessness was significant (F[9, 776] = 22.447, p < .001). The partial regression
coefficient of grade level was significant and negative (b = -0.081, p < .001), indicating that a
higher percentage of 11th graders and lower percentage of ninth graders was likely to decrease
discriminatory bullying in school. The partial regression coefficient of percentage of Hispanic
students was significant and negative (b = -0.050, p < .001), indicating a higher percentage of
Hispanic students and lower percentage of White students was likely to decrease discriminatory
bullying in school. The partial regression coefficient of percentage of gang membership was
102
positive and significant (b = 0.210, p < .001), which shows that increasing the percentage of
gang members in school was likely to increase discriminatory bullying. The unique contributions
of gender and homelessness variables were nonsignificant.
In Step 2 (Table 3.7), adding school climate to the regression caused two changes to the
demographic variables: percentage of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and
Pacific Islander students and percentage of Asian students became significant (b = 1.141, p <
.01; b = -0.036, p < .05, respectively), indicating that an increased percentage of the former was
likely to increase discriminatory bullying, whereas an increased percentage of is the latter was
likely to decrease discriminatory bullying. The results of the remaining demographic and
background variables were similar to results from Step 1. Notably, homelessness status remained
nonsignificant, meaning that the percentage of homeless students was not related to
discriminatory bullying. The partial coefficient of school climate was negative and significant (b
= -0.453, p < .001). These results indicate that while controlling for demographic and
background variables, increasing the mean of positive school climate was likely to decrease the
percentage of discriminatory bullying in school. The regression model including school climate
was significant (F[10, 775] = 22.814, p < .001), with an R
2
of .227.
Percentage of behavioral victimization. Step 1 from Table 3.7 shows that the regression
model was significant (F[9, 780] = 23.152, p < .001). The partial regression coefficient of grade
level was significant and negative (b = -0.082, p < .001), meaning that a higher percentage of
students in 11th grade and a lower percentage of students in ninth grade was likely to decrease
the prevalence of behavioral victimization. All partial regression coefficients of race and
ethnicity were statistically significant. Partial coefficients of percentage of Asian, Black, and
Hispanic students were negative and statistically significant (b = -0.146, -0.120, and -0.079,
103
respectively; p < .001 for all). The partial coefficients of percentage of American Indian, Alaska
Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students and percentage of mixed-race students
were positive and significant (b = 0.234, p < .001; b = .104, p < .05, respectively). The partial
coefficient of percentage of gang membership was positive and significant (b = 0.346, p < .001),
which shows that increasing the percentage of gang membership was likely to increase
behavioral victimization in schools. The unique contribution of homelessness was positive and
significant (b = 0.143, p < .05), indicating that increasing the percentage of homeless students in
school tended to increase the percentage of behavioral victimization in schools. The gender
variable was nonsignificant.
When adding school climate to the regression in Step 2 (Table 3.7), the race and ethnicity
category of mixed and the percentage of homeless students became nonsignificant, whereas the
results of the other demographic and background variables were similar to the results from Step
1. The partial coefficient of mean of school climate was negative and significant (b = -0.714, p <
.001). These results indicate that while controlling for demographic and background variables,
increasing the mean of positive school climate was likely to decrease the prevalence of
behavioral victimization in school. The regression model including school climate was
significant (F[10, 797] = 24.137, p < .001) and the R
2
was .237.
Log percentage of weapon involvement. The first step of the regression model
presented in Table 3.7 was significant (F[9, 774] = 123.091, p < .001). The partial regression
coefficients of grade and gender was significant and positive (b = -0.001, p < .001; b = 0.004, p <
.001, respectively). The partial coefficients of percentage of Black students and percentage of
American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students were positive
and significant (b = 0.004 p < .001; b = 0.003, p < .01, respectively). The partial coefficient of
104
percentage of Asian students was negative and significant (b = -0.004, p < .001). The partial
coefficient of percentage of gang membership was positive and significant (b = 0.013, p < .001),
which shows that increasing the percentage of gang members was likely to increase the log
percentage of weapon involvement. The partial coefficient of percentage of homeless students
was positive and significant. This indicates that higher percentages of homeless students were
likely to increase the log percentage of weapon involvement for the school as a whole.
After entering school climate in Step 2 (Table 3.7), the percentage of American Indian,
Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students became nonsignificant, whereas
the results of other demographic and background variables were similar to the results from Step
1. The partial coefficient of mean of school climate was negative and significant (b = -0.025, p <
.001). These results indicate that while controlling for demographic and background variables,
increasing the mean of positive school climate was likely to decrease the log percentage of
weapon involvement in school. The regression model including school climate was significant
(F[10, 775] = 24.137, p < .001) and the R
2
was .630.
The increase in R
2
when the school climate was added into regression was greater for
weapon involvement than discriminatory bullying or behavioral victimization. These results
indicate that the mean of school climate was more predictive of weapon involvement than
discriminatory bullying or behavioral victimization.
Discussion
School-attending homeless youth are an understudied population. In particular, limited
research has explored the role that the school context plays for this population with respect to
risk behaviors. Similarly, little research has considered whether the role of school climate in
school violence varies at the individual and school levels in general (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018)
105
and between homeless and nonhomeless students. The goal of this study was to empirically
document the relationship between school climate and violence behaviors in school and its role
for homeless students at the individual and school levels. Using a population sample of students
in high school, this study assessed associations between multiple components of school climate
and discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement in school among
subgroups of homeless students and nonhomeless students. At the school and individual levels,
relationships between school climate and violence outcomes were evaluated, while controlling
for school sociodemographic variables and background variables (including homelessness). The
results yielded different yet complementary information at the student and school levels, which
points to several avenues for intervention and policy change. Notably, the results of this study
indicate that at the student level, multiple components of supportive school climate reduced the
likelihood of experiencing discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon
involvement in school among homeless and nonhomeless students. In addition, linear
hierarchical regression at the school level indicated that the presence of homeless students in
school was not associated with the rate of discriminatory bullying or behavioral victimization.
However, the presence of homeless students in school was associated with a higher rate of
weapon involvement. Moreover, positive school climate at school level reduced the likelihood of
all violence behaviors in school.
The results of this study offer insights into several bodies of literature, including school
climate literature and homeless youth violence literature. The findings clearly indicate that
schools, and principally school climate, play a role for all groups of homeless students. This
study provided empirical evidence to theories and policies that focus on risk and protective
factors among homeless and nonhomeless youths. In particular, it strengthened the assumptions
106
that schools as a socialization agent have an important role in the lives of homeless youths
(Milburn et al., 2009). However, despite the MVA’s implied assumption that attendance and
limited support in schools are sufficient for homeless students to receive an equal opportunity for
education, the findings show that the school context could either increase or abate adverse
behaviors among homeless youths. This finding strengthens the risk amplification and abatement
model (Milburn et al., 2009), which posits that homeless youths’ behaviors are affected by
engagement in negative or positive socialization experiences throughout the life course and
across various domains of social organizations, including schools. Additionally, results from the
school level indicate that school-level interventions may be especially beneficial for these
youths, presenting a new avenue to understand and intervene to better the lives of homeless
youth. Regarding the school climate literature, this study illustrates the need to further examine
school climate in the context of homeless students and specifically to understand the importance
of different components of climate, given their differences compared to other populations.
Results also indicate the need to support particular school dimensions such as safety to address
the pressing challenges of homeless students.
School Climate, Discriminatory Bullying, and Behavioral Victimization
The findings of this study suggest that a positive school climate can reduce the likelihood
school discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization at the student level. Multiple
components of school climate, including sense of connectedness, positive relationships with
adults in school, and perceptions of safety, were significantly related to discriminatory bullying
and behavioral victimization. This finding supports previous research that linked multiple
components of school climate and school victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018; De Pedro et
al., 2016; Moore et al., 2017). Principally, this study indicated that sense of connectedness and
107
safety had negative and significant associations with discriminatory bullying and behavioral
victimization. Findings demonstrate that across all groups of homeless students, the likelihood of
experiencing discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization decreased, yet remained
significant when school climate components were controlled. These results may indicate that
when homeless students are nested in supportive school contexts, they are less likely to
experience discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization in school. Findings show that as
the homelessness condition worsened (i.e., sheltered and nonsheltered homeless students vs.
doubled-up students), students were more likely to experience discriminatory bullying and
behavioral victimization in school. This finding has been supported in previous research (see
Chapter 2), and illustrates that schools can be an additional location in which homeless students
are at risk of victimization. However, findings also indicate that positive school climate, and
especially feeling safe and connected to school, has a strong association with reduced
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization among all groups of homeless and
nonhomeless students. Unpredictably, despite having a significant relationship with
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, positive relationships with adults in school
and meaningful participation had very weak associations with the outcomes. Although previous
studies have found similar results regarding meaningful participation (De Pedro et al., 2016), this
is one of the first studies to find a low association between positive relationships with adults in
school and school violence outcomes. Because the tested model included background variables
of homelessness and gang involvement, the findings suggest that while controlling for these
variables, the role of positive relationships with adults in schools was less significant. This
finding challenges previous theoretical and empirically based work on the role of supportive
adult relationships and school victimization (Thapa et al., 2013) and highlights the fact that for
108
homeless and gang-involved students, school connectedness and safety are more strongly
associated with discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization than other school climate
components.
Additionally, findings at the individual level provide an important contribution to both
the homeless youth violence literature and research related to school-attending homeless youth.
By creating avenues to encourage student connectedness to school and increasing perceptions of
safety in school, students and homeless students in particular will likely experience less
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization.
The school-level findings provide an additional layer of information that complements
the findings at the individual level. Positive school climate was associated with reduced school
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization. Interestingly, findings indicate that the
presence of homeless students in school was not associated with the rate of discriminatory
bullying and behavioral victimization, meaning that although individual homeless students may
have experienced discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization in schools, the presence
of homeless students in school was not associated with the rates of these behaviors at the school
level. In the first study to explore school climate, discriminatory bullying, and behavioral
victimization in the context of homeless youth, these results provide insight into the role of
school for homeless students with respect to discriminatory bullying and behavioral
victimization, in addition to the role of homeless students with respect to these outcomes.
Overall, school climate was found to be important for both homeless and nonhomeless students;
a supportive climate reduced school violence and an unsupportive climate might have had a
damaging influence on homeless students. It is worth noting that homeless subcategories were
collapsed into one category, potentially contributing to the lack of association with school-level
109
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization because it included doubled-up students
who, at the individual level, had lower risk of being victimized in school.
School Climate and Weapon Involvement
The findings of this study demonstrate that a positive school climate can reduce the
probability of weapon involvement in school at the student and school levels. Similar to
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization findings at the student level, homeless
students across all groups were at higher risk of being involved with weapons in school,
especially nonsheltered and sheltered homeless students. However, the risk of homeless students
being involved with weapons in school was higher than their risk of experiencing discriminatory
bullying and behavioral victimization. Overall, weapon involvement in schools remains an
unexplored territory in school literature (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018), especially regarding the
relationship of supportive school climate and student homelessness. Moreover, despite the
myriad studies examining violence and victimization among homeless youths (Edidin et al.,
2012; Hudson et al., 2010), not much is known about the prevalence of weapon involvement and
violence in this population (Bender, Thompson, Ferguson, Yoder, & DePrince, 2015). Hence,
these findings indicate that weapon involvement among homeless youth requires further
investigation and that interventions should target this issue in schools.
Corresponding with findings for discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization at
the individual level, school climate components most significantly associated with weapon
involvement were connectedness and safety. Safety had a stronger association with weapon
involvement than discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization.
One of the most striking findings of this study resulted from the examination of school
climate and weapon involvement at the school level. The fitted model had 60% predictive ability
110
(R
2
) when all variables (demographics, background, school climate) were included. This was the
best-fitting model at the school level tested in this study.
Percentage of homeless students and weapon involvement were positively associated at
both the student and school levels. Schools with a higher proportion of homeless students had
higher rates of weapon involvement in school. Additionally, a higher proportion of gang
members in schools was associated with a higher rate of weapon involvement. The literature has
shown an association between youth homelessness and gang membership (Petering, 2016;
Petering & Moore, 2017; also see Chapter 2). This means that homeless students who are also
gang involved should receive unique consideration regarding interventions for school violence
and especially weapon involvement. This also raises questions regarding the relationship
between gang membership, weapon involvement and homelessness status. It could be that
homeless students who are gang involved are involved with weapons based on their gang
association. On the other hand, it could be that they are involved with weapon regardless of gang
association or membership. Future studies which focus on this intersection in school, and
specifically around the motive of weapon involvement should be conducted.
Contrasting findings from school-level discriminatory bullying and behavioral
victimization, which had no association with homelessness, findings regarding weapon
involvement indicate a positive relationship with the prevalence of homeless students. This could
be related to multiple factors, including the larger contexts in which schools are nested, such as
neighborhood safety and district characteristics. Future work should examine this association
with regard to larger ecological contexts, which may indicate that intervention is needed in
certain arenas.
111
To date, no studies have compared associations between school climate and weapon
involvement among homeless and nonhomeless students. Given the fact that weapon
involvement is one of the most extreme forms of school-related violence, the findings provide
several insights. First, the findings indicate that weapon involvement is prevalent in 15% of
schools across California, which means that many students are exposed to weapons in school and
greater consideration should be given to weapons in schools and homeless students in particular.
Second, previous research suggested that homeless youth may be carrying weapons as a form of
protection (Bender et al., 2015), and a recent study found that victims of bullying appear to be
much more likely to bring a weapon to school (Pham, Schapiro, Majnu, & Adesman, 2017).
Because this study found that school-attending homeless youths are at high risk of experiencing
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization, one explanation for their increased
likelihood of weapon involvement is their need to protect themselves against bullying and
victimization. Third, supportive school climate had an association with reduced levels of weapon
involvement in school at the school level (stronger than its relationship with discriminatory
bullying and behavioral victimization), which means that enhancing positive climate may benefit
all students and especially homeless students.
Currently there are ongoing discussions about ending the Gun-Free School Zones Act
(1990). This study’s findings clearly show that students are involved with weapons in schools,
placing themselves and many others at risk of physical and emotional harm. Therefore, the
findings suggest that future policies and interventions should focus on paths to reduce weapon
carrying and involvement in school, rather than eradicating policies that aim to make schools
safer.
112
Differences between Individual and School Levels
The differences between individual and school levels provide insights and important
contributions to theory, research, practice, and policy. First, when considering school climate
components at the school level, this study yielded interesting theoretical and conceptual
information. The correlations between school climate components at the school level were very
high and led to the aggregation of the components into one variable. This means that unlike the
student level, wherein each component had a unique contribution to the concept of school
climate, at the school level, the components were dependent on one another. From a theoretical
standpoint, the implication of this finding may be that the construct of school climate at the
school level affected the different components of school climate, producing high correlations.
This should be considered in the conceptualization of future studies and the development of the
understanding of school climate components at different levels.
Second, the contrast between different levels indicates that focusing on the school level,
rather than the individual level, provides unique information about multiple violence behaviors
in schools. In particular, it indicates that differences exist between individual experiences and
perceptions and school-level findings. This means that interventions should target both the
school and student levels; however, schoolwide interventions may have a stronger and broader
impact on homeless students. Simultaneously, targeted interventions that address groups at
greatest risk should be developed and provided at school sites, because these groups experience
extremely high rates of all forms of violence.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study has several methodological and conceptual strengths. First, this study
used a large-scale, representative statewide sample, inclusive of many public schools across
113
California. Additionally, it included student-level and school-level analyses, allowing for a
nuanced and complementary conceptualization of the role of school climate on various outcomes
of school violence. Moreover, it featured an array of school violence outcomes including
discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement, representing the first
examination to date of the role of school climate in these outcomes among both homeless and
nonhomeless students. Above all, this study was one of the first to address the gap in the
literature regarding weapon involvement in school for homeless youths, providing important
insights for possible intervention in this area and focusing on schools as a social agent to support
homeless youth.
Several limitations should be noted regarding this study. First, this study’s cross-sectional
nature prevented determination of causality. Second, the use of secondary data restricted the
variables, particularly homelessness categories. Because the categorization was created
specifically for this study, homelessness might have been overreported or underreported,
specifically for the category of “living with another family,” which did not imply whether the
students were a hosting family or being hosted by a family. Future national and state-based
surveys should include a detailed homelessness category based on the MVA definition to gain
more accurate data regarding the school experience and outcomes among homeless students.
Third, the fact that the dependent variables were dichotomized as either experiencing or not
experiencing an outcome may have reduced the differentiation between nonviolence and strong
violence.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, homelessness subcategories were collapsed into
one category, which may have contributed to the lack of association with school-level
114
discriminatory bullying and behavioral victimization because it included doubled-up students,
who had lower individual risk of being victimized in school.
Implications and Conclusions
This study made important contributions to several bodies of literature, including the
school climate literature, youth homelessness literature, and violence literature, while
demonstrating the need to explore intersections and overlapping areas in theory, research, and
practice. Additionally, this study has several important implications for policy makers, especially
in the context of recent amendments to the MVA and accountability requirements under the
ESSA. Based on the findings, a holistic approach that focuses on the school experience of
school-attending homeless youths could benefit these students and the schools that serve them in
terms of practice, research, policy advocacy, and theory development. In particular, gaining
information about school-attending homeless youth and their school violence experience at the
local and state levels can support grants, resources, and funding not directly addressing the issue
of homelessness that could promote well-being in the entire school community. Improving
school climate and SEL, with an emphasis on safety and sense of connectedness, would be
beneficial to schools and has the potential to enhance students’ school experience and as a result,
their success.
Moreover, the capacity and ability of schools and districts, especially those with higher
rates of poverty, homeless students and gang involved students, should be considered and further
examined. For example, because schools with high rates of homeless students often struggle with
funding and resources, expanding the framework and including data collection at the local and
state levels could provide tools for establishing and documenting the urgent need of schools for
support in their important work with homeless students. However, capacity does not solely rely
115
on supplementary funding and additional ways to improve schools’ and districts’ capacity to
serve the most vulnerable students with a whole-school approach should be investigated.
Future studies are needed to examine the association between bullying and weapon
involvement, because previous studies indicated that the two are correlated (Pham et al., 2017).
Additionally, examination of the contexts in which schools are nested such as districts and
neighborhoods may provide important information, especially regarding weapon involvement
related to gangs and homelessness. Future work is needed to understand the range, severity, and
frequency of violent behaviors in school among homeless and nonhomeless students, given that
this study focused on dichotomized outcomes.
Given federal changes during the writing of this article, particularly in the executive
branch, shifts are expected in the educational system, and the future direction of education
policies remains uncertain. This fact emphasizes the urgency of focusing on homeless students
and the schools that serve them. The need to establish schools as a safe, protective, and stable
place for homeless students is evident. This will truly fulfill the MVA’s goal of eliminating
barriers to education for homeless students, providing them with equal access to education, the
possibility to succeed in school, and the opportunity to exit homelessness.

116
References
Anderson, D. (2012). Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM): An Introduction to Key Concepts
within Cross-Sectional and Growth Modeling Frameworks. Technical Report#
1308. Behavioral Research and Teaching. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/22d8/2fac0ace03ea307c0f54ab3d7598337599c9.pdf
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bender, K., Thompson, S., Ferguson, K., Yoder, J., & DePrince, A. (2015). Risk detection and
self ‐protection among homeless youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 352–
365. doi:10.1111/jora.12123
Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., McManus, H., Lantry, J., & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Capacity for
survival: Exploring strengths of homeless street youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 36,
25–42. doi:10.1007/s10566-006-9029-4
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
doi:10.3102/0034654316669821
California Department of Education. (2016, September 8). State Board of Education approves
new groundbreaking school accountability system [News release]. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr16/yr16rel59.asp
117
Cellini, S. R., McKernan, S.-M., & Ratcliffe, C. (2008). The dynamics of poverty in the United
States: A review of data, methods, and findings. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 27, 577–605. doi:10.1002/pam.20337
Chen, X., Thrane, L., Whitbeck, L. B., Johnson, K. D., & Hoyt, D. R. (2007). Onset of conduct
disorder, use of delinquent subsistence strategies, and street victimization among
homeless and runaway adolescents in the Midwest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
22, 1156–1183. doi:10.1177/0886260507303731
Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk
behavior: A cross-sectional multi-level analysis of student self-reports. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 45, 2246–2259. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3
De Pedro, K. T., Astor, R. A., Gilreath, T., Benbenishty, R., & Berkowitz, R. (2016). Examining
the relationship between school climate and peer victimization among students in
military-connected public schools. Violence and Victims, 31, 751–767. doi:10.1891/0886-
6708.VV-D-15-00009
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta ‐analysis of school ‐
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01564.x
Edidin, J. P., Ganim, Z., Hunter, S. J., & Karnik, N. S. (2012). The mental and physical health of
homeless youth: A literature review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 354–
375. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0270-1
118
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–
383.
Fantuzzo, J. W., LeBoeuf, W. A., Chen, C.-C., Rouse, H. L., & Culhane, D. P. (2012). The
unique and combined effects of homelessness and school mobility on the educational
outcomes of young children. Educational Researcher, 41, 393–402. Retrieved from
doi:10.3102/0013189X12468210
Ferguson, K. M. (2009). Exploring family environment characteristics and multiple abuse
experiences among homeless youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1875–1891.
doi:10.1177/0886260508325490
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) (1990).
Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: The
psychometric properties of the Healthy Kids Survey (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2007–No. 034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory West.
Hopson, L. M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and
behavioral outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33, 2221–2229. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.006
Huang, F. L. (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data.
Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 175–196. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.952397
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why:
Demographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climate for lesbian,
119
gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 976–988.
doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1
Kotok, S., Ikoma, S., & Bodovski, K. (2016). School climate and dropping out of school in the
era of accountability. American Journal of Education, 122, 569–599. doi:10.1086/687275
Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of
school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_6
Mayock, P., Corr, M. L., & O’Sullivan, E. (2011). Homeless young people, families and change:
Family support as a facilitator to exiting homelessness. Child & Family Social Work, 16,
391–401. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00753.x
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. §
11301 et seq. (1987).
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram ‐Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., …
Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting homelessness over two years: The risk
amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762–785.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00610.x
Miller, P. M. (2011a). An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the
homeless education situation. Educational Policy, 25, 424–450.
doi:10.1177/0895904809351692
Miller, P. M. (2011b). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of
Educational Research, 81, 308–337. doi:10.3102/0034654311415120
120
Moore, H. (2017, November). School-attending homeless youths ’ substance use off and on
school grounds: A California-wide comparison study. Oral presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Atlanta, GA.
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. (2008). Response to
“questions and answers on special education and homelessness ” of the U.S. Department
of Education ’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
Retrieved from http://www.naehcy.org/sites/default/files/dl/conf-2014/h/c6/popp-naehcy-
response.doc
National School Climate Council. (2016). What is school climate? Retrieved from
http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006). McKinney-Vento Act (NCH Fact Sheet No. 18).
Retrieved from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/McKinney.pdf
O’Malley, M., Voight, A., Renshaw, T. L., & Eklund, K. (2015). School climate, family
structure, and academic achievement: A study of moderation effects. School Psychology
Quarterly, 30, 142–157. doi:10.1037/spq0000076
Pham, T. B., Schapiro, L. E., Majnu J., & Adesman, A. (2017). Weapon carrying among victims
of bullying. Pediatrics, 140(6). doi:10.1542/peds.2017-0353
121
Petering, R. (2016). Sexual risk, substance use, mental health, and trauma experiences of gang-
involved homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.009
Petering, R., & Moore, H. (2017, January 13). Understanding homeless youth gang involvement
through the life history calendar. Poster presentation at the 21st Annual Conference of
the Society for Social Work and Research, New Orleans, LA.
Rice, E., Milburn, N. G., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2007). Pro-social and problematic social
network influences on HIV/AIDS risk behaviours among newly homeless youth in Los
Angeles. AIDS Care, 19, 697–704. doi:10.1080/09540120601087038
Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Patton, R., & Buettner, C. (2010). Prevalence of intimate
partner violence reported by homeless youth in Columbus, Ohio. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1579–1593. doi:10.1177/0886260509354590
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
doi:10.3102/0034654313483907
Toro, P. A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P. J. (2007). Homeless youth in the United States: Recent
research findings and intervention approaches. Retrieved from
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/toward-understanding-homelessness-2007-national-
symposium-homelessness-research-homeless-youth-united-states-recent-research-
findings-and-intervention-approaches
Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Cauce, A. M. (2001). The impact of childhood
sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among runaway youth. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 11, 151–176. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00008
122
Wenzel, S., Holloway, I., Golinelli, D., Ewing, B., Bowman, R., & Tucker, J. (2012). Social
networks of homeless youth in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41, 561–571. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9709-8
WestEd. (2017). California Healthy Kids Survey. Retrieved from http://chks.wested.org/
Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School climate: Historical
review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 28, 139–152. doi:10.1177/0734282909344205

123
Table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Students (N = 389,569)
n % or M (SD) Range
Grade 389,569
9 204,923 52.6
11 184,646 47.4
Gender 386,160
Male 189,489 49.1
Female 196,671 50.9
Race and ethnicity 376,755
Hispanic 184,442 49.0
Black 13,635 3.6
Asian 39,158 10.4
AI, AN, HI, or PI 11,702 3.1
Mixed 40,521 10.8
White 89,463 23.0
Gang membership 360,471
No 332,944 92.4
Yes 25,527 7.6
Homelessness 385,252
Nonsheltered homeless 2,822 0.7
Sheltered homeless 2,179 0.6
Living with friend or relative 11,917 3.1
Living with another family 10,333 2.7
Nonhomeless 358,001 92.9
Discriminatory bullying 355,380
No 271,431 76.4
Yes 83,949 23.6
Behavioral victimization 353,409
No 135,762 38.4
Yes 217,647 61.6
Weapon involvement 361,096
No 319,626 88.5
Yes 41,470 11.5
School climate
School connectedness 379,072 10.59 (2.87) 3–15
Meaningful participation 375,163 6.69 (2.55) 3–12
Positive relationship 363,288 17.57 (4.59) 6–24
Safety 384,981 3.55 (1.09) 1–5
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI =
Pacific Islander.

124
Table 3.2. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Discriminatory Bullying by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate
Step 1 Step 2
b SE OR 95% CI b SE OR 95% CI
Constant 0.804 0.017 1.894 0.027
Grade 11 -0.225 0.012 0.798** 0.779, 0.818 -0.227 0.012 0.797** 0.778, 0.817
Male gender -0.394 0.010 0.674** 0.661, 0.687 -0.399 0.010 0.671** 0.658, 0.684
Race and ethnicity
Hispanic -0.134 0.016 0.875** 0.847, 0.903 -0.200 0.016 0.818** 0.794, 0.844
Black 0.012 0.026 1.011 0.961, 1.065 -0.066 0.026 0.936* 0.888, 0.986
Asian -0.305 0.022 0.737** 0.706, 0.770 -0.345 0.021 0.708** 0.680, 0.738
AI, AN, HI, or
PI
0.039 0.028 1.040 0.985, 1.098 -0.015 0.028 0.984 0.932, 1.039
Mixed 0.096 0.016 1.101** 1.066, 1.136 0.054 0.017 1.055* 1.021, 1.090
Gang member 0.518 0.016 1.679** 1.626, 1.733 0.429 0.017 1.537** 1.488, 1.588
Homelessness
status

Nonsheltered
homeless
0.601 0.056 1.824** 1.636, 2.034 0.329 0.056 1.390** 1.243, 1.552
Sheltered
homeless
0.349 0.060 1.418** 1.260, 1.595 0.214 0.062 1.238** 1.097, 1.397
Living with
friend or relative
0.288 0.025 1.334** 1.269, 1.402 0.239 0.026 1.269** 1.207, 1.335
Living with
other family
0.234 0.024 1.265** 1.207, 1.325 0.204 0.024 1.226** 1.170, 1.285
School climate
Connectedness -0.030 0.002 0.970** 0.966, 0.974
Meaningful
participation
-0.004 0.002 0.996* 0.991, 0.999
Positive
relationship
-0.006 0.001 0.994* 0.992, 0.996
Safety -0.158 0.006 0.853** 0.844, 0.863
χ
2
(df) 5,825.522 (12)*** 9,624.597 (16)***
∆χ
2
(df) 3,799.075 (4)***
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. Errors were
adjusted for the complex design (students are nested with schools). Reference categories were Grade 9, female
gender, White race and ethnicity, not a gang member, and not homeless.
*p < .001.

125
Table 3.3. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Behavioral Victimization by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate
Step 1 Step 2
b SE OR 95% CI b SE OR 95% CI
Constant -1.133 0.016 0.875 0.027
Grade 11 -0.238 0.010 0.788* 0.772, 0.805 -0.247 0.011 0.781* 0.764, 0.797
Male gender -0.146 0.011 0.864* 0.847, 0.881 -0.154 0.010 0.857* 0.840, 0.875
Race and ethnicity
Hispanic -0.100 0.019 0.905* 0.871, 0.940 -0.166 0.019 0.847* 0.816, 0.878
Black 0.334 0.033 1.397* 1.309, 1.490 0.240 0.035 1.270* 1.187, 1.360
Asian 0.222 0.033 1.248* 1.170, 1.330 0.179 0.032 1.195* 1.122, 1.274
AI, AN, HI, or PI 0.243 0.030 1.275* 1.203, 1.353 0.176 0.030 1.192* 1.123, 1.265
Mixed 0.223 0.018 1.250* 1.207, 1.294 0.174 0.018 1.190* 1.148, 1.233
Gang member 0.665 0.018 1.944* 1.878, 2.013 0.549 0.018 1.732* 1.671, 1.795
Homelessness status
Nonsheltered
homeless
0.959 0.049 2.609* 2.367, 2.877 0.616 0.051 1.852* 1.673, 2.049
Sheltered homeless 0.720 0.053 2.054* 1.849, 2.281 0.535 0.055 1.708* 1.534, 1.903
Living with friend
or relative
0.241 0.025 1.272* 1.211, 1.336 0.184 0.026 1.201* 1.142, 1.264
Living with other
family
0.192 0.027 1.212* 1.148, 1.279 0.160 0.028 1.173* 1.110, 1.239
School climate
Connectedness -0.048 0.002 0.953* 0.949, 0.957
Meaningful
participation
0.028 0.002 1.028* 1.025, 1.032
Positive
relationship
-0.012 0.001 0.987* 0.985, 0.989
Safety -0.175 0.006 0.839* 0.829, 0.849
χ
2
(df) 4,815.302 (12)*** 9,452.972 (16)***
∆χ
2
(df) 4,637.668 (4)***
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. Errors were
adjusted for the complex design (students are nested with schools). Reference categories were Grade 9, female
gender, White race and ethnicity, not a gang member, and not homeless.
*p < .001.

126
Table 3.4. Hierarchical Logistic Regression for Predicting Weapon Involvement by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate
Step 1 Step 2
b SE OR 95% CI b SE OR 95% CI
Constant -2.888 0.028 -0.733 0.034
Grade 11 -.0198 0.015 0.820* 0.796, 0.845 -0.189 0.015 0.827* 0.802, 0.852
Male gender 0.768 0.013 2.156* 2.099, 2.214 0.774 0.014 2.168* 2.110, 2.228
Race and ethnicity
Hispanic 0.192 0.023 1.211* 1.157, 1.267 0.073 0.021 1.076* 1.033, 1.121
Black 0.218 0.043 1.243* 1.143, 1.352 0.081 0.042 1.084 0.999, 1.176
Asian -0.433 0.038 .6480* 0.601, 0.698 -0.508 0.035 0.601* 0.561, 0.644
AI, AN, HI, or PI 0.249 0.041 1.283* 1.183, 1.392 0.151 0.041 1.163* 1.074, 1.260
Mixed 0.243 0.025 1.275* 1.213, 1.341 0.171 0.023 1.186* 1.132, 1.243
Gang member 1.725 0.017 5.616* 5.431, 5.808 10.578 0.017 4.845* 4.681, 5.014
Homelessness status
Nonsheltered
homeless
1.730 0.053 5.564* 5.076, 6.270 10.193 0.057 3.299* 2.946, 3.693
Sheltered homeless 1.176 0.065 3.240* 2.854, 3.679 0.863 0.069 2.370* 2.068, 2.715
Living with friend
or relative
0.573 0.033 1.773* 1.662, 1.892 0.477 0.033 1.612* 1.510, 1.722
Living with other
family
0.376 0.037 1.456* 1.354, 1.565 0.327 0.037 1.387* 1.289, 1.492
School climate
Connectedness -0.051 0.003 0.949* 0.944, 0.955
Meaningful
participation
0.000 0.003 1.000 0.994, 1.006
Positive
relationship
-0.037 0.002 0.964* 0.960, 0.967
Safety -0.264 0.007 0.767* 0.756, 0.778
χ
2
(df) 19,632.175 (12)* 26,006.996 (16)*
∆χ
2
(df) 6,374.821 (4)*
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. Errors were
adjusted for the complex design (students are nested with schools). Reference categories were Grade 9, female
gender, White race and ethnicity, not a gang member, and not homeless.
*p < .001.

127
Table 3.5. Descriptive Statistics of Average Percentage or Mean of Variables in Schools (N =
801)
M SD Min Max
Discriminatory bullying 23.721 6.5968 0.0 63.6
Behavioral victimization 61.630 8.4200 20.0 90.9
Weapon involvement 14.926 9.9967 0.0 100.0
Grade 11 53.137 20.2584 0.0 100.0
Male gender 50.210 8.6301 0.0 100.0
Race and ethnicity
AI, AN, HI, PI 3.409 4.3918 0.0 57.0
Asian 8.012 11.6035 0.0 77.5
Black 3.987 5.8853 0.0 61.3
Hispanic 50.828 24.7156 0.0 77.5
Mixed 10.108 6.2233 3.8 61.3
White 23.656 20.8284 0.0 88.2
Gang member 9.129 6.2001 0.0 60.0
Homeless 8.092 4.50715 0.0 33.3
School climate 38.1884 2.42656 28.61 45.72
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI =
Pacific Islander. All variables reflect percentage other than school climate,
which reflects mean.

128
Table 3.6. Pearson Correlation at School Level of Demographics, Background, and School
Climate Variables with Violence
Discriminatory
Bullying (%)
Behavioral
Victimization (%)
Weapon Involvement
(log %)
(n = 786) (n = 790) (n = 784)
Grade 11 -.226*** -.094** .360***
Male gender .118** .128*** .430***
Race and ethnicity
AI, AN, HI, or PI .187*** .173*** .134***
Asian .027 -.148*** -.352***
Black .077* -.022 .194***
Hispanic -.254*** -.175*** .190***
Mixed .184*** .180*** .070
Gang member .161*** .250*** .612***
Homeless -.018 .079* .540***
School climate -.087* -.148*** -.566***
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. All
variables reflect percentage other than school climate, which reflects mean. Weapon involvement
was log transformed due to skewness.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

129
Table 3.7. Hierarchical Linear Regression for Predicting Percentage of Violent Behavior by
Demographics, Background, and School Climate Variables
Discriminatory
Bullying (%)
Behavioral
Victimization (%)
Weapon
Involvement (log %)
(n = 786) (n = 790) (n = 784)
b SE b SE b SE
Step 1
Constant 24.737*** 1.363 64.719*** 1.919 .643*** .037
Grade 11 -.081*** .010 -.082*** .014 .001*** .000
Male gender .045 .024 .017 .033 .004*** .001
Race and ethnicity
AI, AN, HI, PI .167 .047 .234*** .065 .003** .001
Asian -.030 .017 -.146*** .024 -.004*** .000
Black .018 .032 -.120** .044 .004*** .001
Hispanic -.050*** .009 -.079*** .013 -.000 .000
Mixed .075* .032 .104* .045 .001 .001
Gang member .210*** .034 .346*** .048 .013*** .001
Homeless .022 .050 .143* .068 .013*** .001
F F9,776 = 22.447*** F9,780 = 23.152*** F9,774 = 123.091***
R
2
.207 0.211 0.589
Step 2
Constant 45.533*** 4.741 97.482*** 6.667 1.772*** .126
Grade 11 -.081*** .009 -.082*** .013 .001*** .000
Male gender .015 .024 -.033 .034 .002** .001
Race and ethnicity
AI, AN, HI, PI .141** .047 .192** .064 .002 .001
Asian -.036* .017 -.154*** .023 -.004*** .000
Black -.015 .032 -.168*** .044 .002** .001
Hispanic -.071*** .010 -.110*** .014 -.001*** .000
Mixed .062 .032 .087 .045 .000 .001
Gang member .182*** .035 .294*** .048 .011*** .001
Homeless -.015 .050 .085 .068 .011*** .001
School climate -.453*** .099 -.714*** .139 -.025*** .003
F F10,775 = 22.814 F10,797 = 24.137 F10,773= 131.853***
R
2
.227 .237 .630
Note. AI = American Indian; AN = Alaska Native; HI = Native Hawaiian; PI = Pacific Islander. All variables
reflect percentage other than school climate, which reflects mean. Weapon involvement was log transformed
due to skewness.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

130
Chapter 4 (Study 3): School District s’ 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
Many U.S. schools are faced with the challenge of supporting homeless students, yet we know
little about how the socioeconomic context of districts and schools affect the practices of
identifying, serving, and supporting homeless students. This mixed-methods case study
compared two school districts, and their four elementary and middle schools, in Southern
California. The districts differed based on their socioeconomic status (SES): a low–medium SES
district and a high SES district. Findings show that despite this difference in the SES context,
both districts were underidentifying, underserving, and lacking awareness of homeless students.
However, districts varied in their poverty awareness and organizational structure, which points to
the need for tailored interventions for each district to better support homeless students.
Implications of this analysis for understanding school- and district-level contextual factors that
affect homeless students are offered, as are recommendations to improve support for homeless
students across SES contexts.

131
Introduction
Schools in American society are faced with the challenge of addressing the needs of
homeless students. Student homelessness is increasingly being recognized as a national problem,
because the number of identified homeless students in U.S. public schools has increased by 17%
since 2011 (National Center for Homeless Education, 2016). Recent reports have indicated that
about 1.3 million homeless students attend public schools across the country (National Center for
Homeless Education, 2014); however, due to the major challenge of underidentification (Hallett,
2012; Hallett & Skrla, 2017; Hallett, Skrla, & Low, 2015), the actual prevalence is likely much
higher. Students who experience homelessness are one of the most educational marginalized
groups in the United States. They encounter various challenges and risks, including housing
instability (Hallett, 2012), frequent school transition (Hinrichsen & Min, 2012), tardiness and
absenteeism (Hinrichsen & Min, 2012), mental health problems (Moore, Benbenishty, Astor, &
Rice, 2017) substance use (Moore, 2017), school victimization (Brooks Nelson, 2016; Moore et
al., 2017), low academic achievement, and low graduation rates (Masten, Fiat, Labella, & Strack,
2015).
Despite these risk factors, to date, there have been no large-scale, generalizable,
empirical, epidemiological studies documenting the rates and risk factors of homeless students
for any state (see Chapters 2 and 3). Similarly, very few mixed-methods or qualitative studies
have explored how school districts and schools understand, respond to, or provide services to
homeless students (Hallett et al., 2015; P. M. Miller, 2011). This is surprising given that student
homelessness received recognition at the national policy level 30 years ago with the passage of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act (1987; MVA), which was amended in 2015 by
the Every Student Succeeds Act. The MVA is administrated by the U.S. Department of
132
Education and provides a broader definition of what constitutes homelessness when compared to
other narrower definitions (such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
definition). The MVA 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. This broad definition is based on a decision
made by policy makers to address the adverse educational consequences of high mobility and
housing instability (Hallett et al., 2015). Overall, Title VII-B of the act, known as the Education
for Homeless Children and Youths Program, addresses the educational needs of children who
meet the act’s definition of homelessness, including immediate enrollment, maintenance of
attendance, and provision of equal opportunities for education.
Furthermore, many state-level funds are available for homeless students. Yet the amount
of empirical data and studies documenting or guiding services is scant. In California, the Local
Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), under the Local Control Funding Formula, 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, 2017, p. 2). Since 2015, homeless students must be
included in school districts’ LCAPs, to show how their needs are being met. For districts, one of
the important considerations that the formula highlights is the decentralization of funding,
meaning that the funding is now based on the districts’ documented needs and the distribution of
funds depends on various student factors, among them student homelessness. This policy stresses
the role of the schools’ and districts’ interior and exterior community in the planning of funding
distribution and accountability when it comes to student homelessness. Studies are needed to
better understand how these services at the district and school levels are employed or organized.
133
Although federal and state policy makers have both addressed student homelessness and
the unique needs they face with regard to access and ability to succeed in school, research on
student homelessness remains scarce. Specifically, given that homelessness has an implicit
assumption of poverty, the role of socioeconomic status (SES) context, in which the student,
school, and district are embedded, has remained mostly understudied. Existing research on
students who experience homelessness has tended to focus on low SES districts or schools.
Comparison studies are needed to understand and examine similarities or differences between
districts that serve homeless students in a different SES context. Particularly, schools nested
within districts may have different SES neighborhood contexts than the district as a whole,
which may affect how they address homelessness in any particular school or school district.
This study investigated the manner in which the SES of districts and middle and
elementary schools affects the role that schools and districts play in supporting and serving
students who experience homelessness. It approached this question 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, such as number of students, number of schools, number of identified homeless
students, and general geographic location. However, the districts differed based on their district-
and school-level community SES rates. Specifically, this study compared a high SES district and
a low–medium SES district in addressing the needs of their homeless students. In each of the
districts, two elementary and middle schools with the most identified or assumed homeless
students were selected to participate. This design addressed the lack of research on homeless
students in elementary and middle schools, despite the largest proportion of homeless students
being in elementary and middle schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
134
Homelessness in Schools through a District, School, and Community Contextual Lens
Homeless students are an understudied and underserved population (Hallett & Skrla,
2017; P. M. Miller, 2011). Examining the rather small existing literature on student
homelessness through an ecological framework suggested that studies have focused on multiple
separate layers (students, schools, districts, communities, policy implementation) in a general
way without examining corresponding interactions (P. M. Miller & Bourgeois, 2013).
Additionally, the main outcomes investigated have been consistent and largely involve academic
achievement (Duffield & Lovell, 2008; Masten et al., 2015), practices to improve academic
achievement (Tobin, 2011), and the implementation of the MVA (P. M. Miller, 2011).
At the student level, research has shown that homeless students are at risk of dropping out
of school (Masten et al., 2015), experience developmental delays (National Coalition for
Homeless, 2012), use substances off and on school grounds (Moore, 2017), have problems with
attendance and truancy (Hinrichsen & Min, 2012), have mental health problems, and experience
school victimization (Moore et al., 2017). Research that focused on the school level or school
factors that affect homeless students has shown that positive school climate may be a protective
factor for homeless students regarding school victimization and mental health (Moore et al.,
2017; also see Chapters 2 and 3), and that schools can develop strategies to support homeless
students such as creating a caring environment, supporting parents, providing academic
enrichment, coordinating with other agencies, and providing basic supplies (Tobin, 2011).
Studies that focused on the district level tended to examine the implementation of the
MVA. Overall, findings showed that state and federal policy incentives can be an important
strategy for districts to advance their homelessness services, and that to advance equal
opportunities for homeless students, adjustments in school and district policies not related to
135
homelessness should be made (Hallett et al., 2015). Although the MVA specifically addresses
the importance of the district-level homeless liaison, research is scarce when it comes to this
role. The small amount of existing research revealed significant differences in perceived
implementation regarding collaboration with teachers and school administrators, liaison job
titles, school receipt of federal funding for education of homeless students, and understanding of
homelessness in terms of general awareness, interaction, policy, and needs (Chanmugam,
Kemter, & Goodwin, 2015; Wilkins, Mullins, Mahan, & Canfield, 2016). Lack of funding at
both state and district levels is an additional barrier to implementation (P. M. Miller, 2011).
Limited studies were conducted to examine the role of the community. 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, P. M. Miller and
Bourgeois (2013) concluded that conceptual frameworks of homeless students should include the
intersections of school, community, and policy contexts. The effects of homelessness on school
matters are clearly associated with student- and family-level variables (student age and
developmental stage, family reasons for being homeless, duration of homelessness, etc.), along
with school and neighborhood variables.
Research findings regarding the MVA suggested that homeless students are
underidentified, receive inadequate services, and are often denied access to schools (Jozefowicz-
Simbeni & Israel, 2006; P. M. Miller, 2011). Furthermore, emerging empirical evidence has
suggested that: (a) many homeless liaisons in schools are unaware of their role (Thompson &
Davis, 2003); (b) school staffs are uninformed as to the number of homeless students in their
school and their role in addressing this issue (Julianelle, 2008; Shea, Zetlin, & Weinberg, 2010);
and (c) services and transfer of records are delayed. The lack of coordination or cooperation
136
among liaisons, school-based professionals, service agencies, and family members has a
detrimental impact on the implementation of the act (Groton, Teasley, & Canfield, 2013).
Researchers reported several trends regarding the relationship between schools and
district SES and income segregation (Owens, Reardon, & Jencks, 2016), academic achievement
(Reardon, 2016), and educational opportunities (Madson, 2016). Specifically, in a sample that
included most school districts in the United States, only 6.8% of the poorest districts had mean
test scores at or above the national average (Reardon, 2016). Conversely, only 1.6% of the most
affluent districts in the United States had mean test scores at or below the national average. This
implies that district SES provides access to educational opportunities. Owens and colleagues
(2017) also found that the rise in income segregation between both schools and districts may
have implications for inequality in student access to resources that affect academic achievement.
Additionally, the ability for students to access and enroll in specific educational opportunities
varies significantly based on size and SES of the district. High school size is a strong empirical
predictor of Advanced Placement course offerings, and enrollment and SES of the school is the
strongest predictor (Madson, 2016).
This body of knowledge demonstrates that each unit of analysis and ecological layer
provides highly important information that contributes to the understanding of the unique
challenges and needs of homeless students and the schools and districts that serve them.
However, the contextual aspect, particularly the embedded nature of students in schools in
districts in a community and the links among them, is missing from current conceptual models of
homeless student in schools. Additionally, an empirical understanding of the role of SES and its
impact on districts and schools who serve homeless students is lacking from the literature.
137
Theoretical Framework: Nestedness of Homeless Students in Multiple Contexts
Students who experience homelessness are nested in schools, districts, and communities.
In line with open-systems organizational theory (E. J. Miller & Rice, 1967), schools do not exist
in a void; on the contrary, they invariably interact with their multiple exterior contexts. Scott
(2008) argued that contextual factors have an immense impact on the way schools and districts
develop their organizational structure and responses. Specifically, schools as open systems
consist of five basic elements: inputs (standard materials and concepts used by the organization);
a transformation process (subsystems to process the inputs and generate outputs); outputs
(tangible results from the organization, products, or services); feedback, and the environment
(feedback inward from the environment and feedback outward to the environment; Scott, 2008).
The conceptual heuristic model of Astor and Benbenishty (2018) provides deeper insights
to open-systems theory and served as a guideline for this work. Astor and Benbenishty’s
integrative model places the school, rather than the individual student, in the center. They
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. Unlike open systems theory,
which centers on the role of outside contexts as forces that shape the schools’ organizational
structure, Astor and Benbenishty (2018) 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.
Additionally, this conceptual model presents the unique external contextual environment
in which schools are embedded, including the district, neighborhoods and communities. Districts
play a vital role as an outside context, because they carry the responsibility for and discretion of
funding distribution, catering to the requirements of multiple stakeholders, and specifically with
138
regard to homeless students, the mandate to provide services and ensure equal opportunity for
education. Moreover, neighborhoods and local communities are contexts that influence schools
and districts. Community and neighborhood SES context and lack of equal opportunities for
education and employment are crucial factors that contribute to the ability of schools and
districts to support homeless students. Although this has been articulated in theory, empirical
data are lacking regarding the application of the theory to homeless students nested in schools
and districts.
Homeless students are embedded in multiple layers, and each of these units includes
subunits. The school unit, for example, includes families of homeless students, students, a school
homeless liaison, school social workers, attendance and heath clerks, counselors, teachers,
principals, administrators, etc. The district unit includes district administrators, district-level
workers, a district homeless liaison, district nurses, district social workers, community
stakeholders, and more. The interaction within each unit and between units, in addition to larger
contextual factors such as society or SES, have an impact on students who experience
homelessness.
Based on the literature review findings, students who experience homelessness and are
nested in affluent districts and schools might be expected to be better served than homeless
students in lower SES districts. Alternatively, it is possible that wealthier districts do not have an
awareness of poverty, homelessness, and the need for schools to provide services to this
population, compared to districts and schools situated in high-poverty areas. This mixed-methods
case study examined nuances, context, and interactional factors that influence high and low SES
school settings, including their services and awareness of homeless students.
139
Method
This 8-month comparative case study relied on 27 interviews, 98 survey responses, 102
hours 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 students who experience
homelessness from multiple perspectives. The institutional review board at the University of
Southern California approved this study.
This study compared a low–medium SES district and a high SES district. In each district,
two schools with the most identified or assumed homeless students were selected to participate.
An ecological perspective was applied to the case studies to encompass the multiple factors
embedded in the district to understand the school experience of homeless students and the role of
school in their lives. Although little is known about the SES context of districts and schools with
regard to homeless students, based on previous literature on the SES context of districts and
other outcomes, I expected 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. The following research questions were investigated:
1. Are there differences based on districts’ and schools’ SES in the way they identify and
serve homeless students?
2. How do staff at the district and school level characterize their role in terms of serving
homeless students? Are there differences base on the SES context?
3. How does the SES context of districts and schools influence the way they serve homeless
students?
140
4. What are the school experiences of homeless students at the elementary and middle
school levels? Are these experiences influenced by the SES context?
Specifically, several contradicting theoretical possibilities based on prior research and
literature were examined in this study. These possible conceptual theories include the assumption
that a high SES district that has more money and available resources would do better than a low–
medium SES district in being aware of, providing services to, and supporting 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 rarity of homeless students in the community and district. This theoretical
direction assumes that because fewer students in the district experience poverty, the district
would not be organized around these issues, lack awareness of homeless students, and lack
support for students in poverty, including homeless students.
Additionally, it is plausible that a low–medium SES district that has less money and
available resources would do worse in comparison to a high SES district in being aware of,
providing services to, and supporting a more positive school experience for homeless students.
Yet it could also be that a low–medium SES district would do better than a high SES district in
these areas due to the fact that they share characteristics with other students in the district, and
therefore, there would already be services in place to support students with low SES.
Research Design and Sample
To examine and investigate the different theoretical possibilities, a mixed-methods,
exploratory, paradigmatic, embedded, multiple case study design was selected (Yin, 2013).
Because districts do not function as groups of isolated variables but rather all acts and actors
affect one another, multiple subunits were investigated to capture the interdependent and nested
141
units in a district and school. Similarly, the perspectives of various factors that contribute to the
understanding of the school experiences of homeless students and influence how policies and
services are implemented were included. The boundaries of the cases were defined as the district,
staff, teachers, and students. Additionally, this study included multiple sources of evidence that
were triangulated constantly, investigating the consistency of the findings (Duneier, 1999).
Sampling, Participants, and Procedures
Sites and participants for the study were purposively selected at the district and school
levels. First, two districts that expressed interest in understanding student homelessness and the
role that school plays for them were selected to participate. Previous studies that investigated
student homelessness focused on districts located in poverty areas or with low SES (Hallett et al.,
2015; Tobin, 2011). One of this study’s novelties is that it explored two districts that did not
have low SES, allowing exploration of the experience of homeless students and the districts that
serve them in different SES contexts: one district had low–middle SES and the other had high
SES.
Access to the schools and their staff, students, and documents was facilitated through the
researcher’s work with the districts. Because this study focused on districts that were creating
homelessness services, and because research is scarce regarding elementary and middle schools
when it comes to homelessness in schools, schools with the most homeless students in the district
were selected, with an emphasis on elementary schools. It was then discovered that in both
districts, the schools with the most identified homeless students throughout the years or during
the study year were either elementary or middle schools. In both districts, one of the schools was
in a more affluent 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 nestedness and differences of
142
embedded SES context (e.g., a low SES school nested in a high SES district). In the high SES
district, two elementary schools participated. In the low–medium SES district, an elementary
school and a middle school participated.
This study was a part of a larger study conducted among eight districts in Southern
California to investigate the needs and practices that create welcoming schools for students in
transition, particularly military-connected students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2014; Astor, De
Pedro, Gilreath, Esqueda, & Benbenishty, 2013). This study was guided by the research goal of
understanding the role of school for homeless students and their school experiences through
multiple perspectives in a multilevel context, while comparing two districts in Southern
California with different SES contexts.
The decision to focus on two school districts in Southern California was intentional;
California has one of the largest populations of students who experience homelessness—
approximately 270,000 students (Hyatt, Walzer, & Julianelle, 2014). Additionally, the southern
border region presents unique characteristics in terms of demographics compared to other areas
of California. In particular, the two selected districts were comparable based on their location,
number of schools, number of students, and number of identified homeless students (Table 4.1).
Despite their similarities, the districts differed in terms of SES of students and their families and
the community median income; i.e., one district had a low–medium SES, whereas the other had a
high SES.
Table 4.1 shows the districts’ similarities. However, they differed in SES, as
demonstrated by the area’s median income, the number of Title I schools (schools with large
concentrations of low-income students that receive supplemental funds to meet students’
educational goals) in each district, and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price
143
lunch (FRL) per district. The selected schools in both districts were Title I schools and were
identified by the districts’ 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 level (elementary and middle) and number of students. In the high SES district, both
schools had higher rates of FRL-eligible students compared to the district, with one having an
FRL rate 3 times higher than the other. That is, these selected schools (Elementary Schools 2 and
3) had lower SES (based on FRL percentage) compared to the SES of their district. Additionally,
the table describes the number of identified homeless students in each school, meaning students
who were officially identified and registered in the system as eligible for homelessness services.
Data Collection Phases
Table 4.2 represents the multiple data sources used in this study. This mixed-methods
study relied on many 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. This is especially true
for case study research that involves rich empirical data collected through diverse methods
(Kitchenham, 2010; Yin, 2013). Additionally, previous research has indicated that to learn about
a phenomenon, especially in a school-related context, the use of surveys and interviews at
different levels with different organization-level stakeholders assists in better understanding
district- and school-level awareness and organizational understanding (Astor & Benbenishty,
2017).
144
Phase 1: Collection of quantitative and secondary data. The first stage of 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 the 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
and staff members to gain information about particular domains related to the LCAP.
Specifically, these survey data were used to better understand awareness of homeless students
and their needs. Further, the survey included questions about school-based supports for homeless
students. The survey was sent to all teachers in the schools participating in this study. Principals
sent the link to all teachers, and responses were voluntary; 98 responses were recorded. In the
middle school, the survey was also distributed among additional staff members, including
counselors and administrators.
Phase 2: District-level and administrative interviews based on the data. The second
phase consisted of interviews at the district and school administration levels, and 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.
Phase 3: Second round of interviews with teachers and district-level service
providers. The third stage consisted of semistructured interviews. All teachers and staff
145
members who showed interest in participating in an interview were invited to participate. All
interviews took place at the school site, except for one interview that was conducted over the
phone. Recruitment for the third phase was done via two ways. First, the survey included an
option to provide an email address if teachers and staff members were interested in participating
in an interview. Additionally, principals and other staff members suggested school personnel
members who would be relevant (this was also part of Phase 3). The interview itself, although
based on guiding questions, was conducted in a conversational manner to place the participant at
ease and aid in building rapport. This style of interviewing allows researchers to use a structured
approach along with a more conversational manner to address the research questions
(Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1995).
Phase 4: Triangulation of data with district- and school-level administrators. The
fourth stage of data collection occurred once all the 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. The raw data were not addressed, but other information discovered during
these sessions became part of the final analysis. Additionally, the researcher was invited to
participate in town and city meetings on the issue of student homelessness and the corresponding
role of schools.
Anonymity was granted to all participants. All transcripts, notes, and audiotapes were
stored in a locked cabinet in the research office. The names of the schools and participants were
disguised. To protect anonymity, the participants’ quotations were classified at the district or
school, rather than by their role in the school, with the exception of teachers. Consent was
obtained from all participants.
146
Data Analysis
To maintain methodological rigor and analytic defensibility, multiple strategies for rigor
were used, based on conceptualizations of strategies for rigor by Anfara, Brown, and Mangione
(2002) and Padgett (2012). These strategies included, for example, multiple data sources for
construct validity, triangulation with different data sources and among data sources, and code–
recode strategies (see Appendix). These strategies are unique to qualitative work and case studies
in particular (Anfara et al., 2002; Yin, 2013).
Quantitative data. The data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.
Overall, 98 teachers and staff members responded to the surveys. All elementary schools
distributed the surveys only among teachers, whereas the middle school distributed the survey
among all staff members who teach. For the purpose of this study, cross-tabulation analysis was
used to determine the rates of relevant outcomes.
Qualitative data. Interview data were initially transcribed into a Word document and
transferred into NVivo. 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, in which documents are interpreted
by the researcher to give meaning to the context of an assessment topic. Analysis of documents
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 prior to 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. In the coding phase, an
additional coder was responsible for data coding, using the interview manual as a guideline for
147
the analysis to prevent overly exhaustive or rigid coding (Zickmund, 2015). Four interviews and
four qualitative responses were coded by each researcher, 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 without the
transcripts in district meetings to group together potential themes and advance the analysis to a
point at which themes were clearer and stronger. Visual presentations, such as tables and
conceptual maps, helped frame the concepts through the process of connection and sense
making.
Results
Findings from the surveys and analysis of the observations and interviews yielded six
themes: (a) lack of identification of homeless students; (b) beyond the MVA: the school
experience of homeless students; (c) intersection between homelessness and immigration; (d)
attitudes toward poverty, housing instability, and homelessness: homeless students nested in the
community, district, and schools; (e) 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 in response to gaps in services.
Contrary to expectations, the districts did not differ when it came to challenges with
identification and awareness of homeless students and their school experience, despite
differences in their SES context. This means that the overarching expectation was not confirmed
with regard to identification of homeless students, their school experience, or the intersection of
homelessness and immigration status.
However, the delivery of services to and efforts to support homeless students on an
organizational level did differ based on the schools’ and districts’ SES context. These findings
148
partially confirm the overarching expectation that districts would differ based on their SES
context. Still, the most significant and striking finding, the underidentification of homeless
students and lack of awareness of homeless students, was a crosscutting finding across all
schools and districts.
This section presents and interprets the study’s findings in three steps. First, it presents
findings that contradict the overarching expectation that differences would exist between the
districts. These findings include the themes of lack of identification of homeless students;
beyond the MVA: the school experience of homeless students; and intersection between
homelessness and immigration. Second, it presents findings that support the overarching
expectation, specifically the themes of attitudes toward poverty, housing instability, and
homelessness: homeless students nested in the community, district, and schools; and district
organizational structure and demographics as forces that affect the role of school for homeless
students. Both themes stem from the SES composition of each district and attitude toward
homeless students, including capacity in the schools and district and the community surrounding
the school. These themes are explanatory and provide insight regarding the roots of the
differences. Third, it presents the theme of supporting homeless students: from individual
initiatives to school level support in response to gap in services. This section demonstrates how
this theme illustrates similarities in intentions and supports between the districts. On the other
hand, it also shows how SES differences, as established by the explanatory themes, affect service
delivery to homeless students and efforts to organize around student homelessness.
Theme 1: Identification, Definition, and Awareness of Homeless Students
Underidentification of homeless students is a significant barrier to education that received
acknowledgment at the policy level since the initial passage of the MVA. Additionally, it
149
continues to receive attention in new education policies and the research literature (Hallett &
Skrla, 2017; P. M. Miller, 2011; Tobin, 2011). The challenge of identifying students who
experience homelessness is a theme that runs through multiple data sources in both districts and
across all schools. Surprisingly, the findings indicate that despite the difference in the SES
context, the districts did not differ in their ability to identify homeless students. Overall, this
finding is not consistent with the expectation that the districts would vary based on their SES
context.
Findings from this study reveal a far more complex picture indicating that the
underidentification of homeless students requires a deeper understanding and wider investigation
because it is related to multiple contexts. Whereas previous studies focused on either the school
or the district, investigating identification while including information regarding the context of
districts and schools and the interactions between them shed light on previous and current
findings.
In comparing the two districts and the schools nested in them, this study showed that two
domains are related to identification and awareness of homeless students: awareness of the
definition of homelessness, awareness of homeless students in the school, and the process of
identification through registration.
Awareness of homelessness definition and homeless students in school. The findings
show that major gaps existed between the districts’ number of identified homeless students and
estimates that were revealed in interviews and surveys (Table 4.3). 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
150
were living on the streets, doubled up (students who share housing with relatives or friends due
to economic difficulties), or living in a shelter, hotel, or motel. The responses varied significantly
(0, 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, more than 20). Table 4.3 shows that major gaps existed in the
number of identified homeless students and estimates presented by teachers and staff members.
Because respondents responded on a range of numbers, calculations were made to determine the
minimum number of homeless students (excluding duplications) and maximum number of
homeless students (excluding duplications except for the middle school).
The results show that both districts and all schools were underidentifying their homeless
students. Identification of homeless students has been consistently singled out as a major
challenge for districts and hence, this finding supports previous literature. However, this study
added to the literature by demonstrating the importance of teachers in the identification process
and the role of collaboration among staff members at the school and district levels. 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, suggesting that lower
SES schools should be targeted if aiming to identify homeless students.
An important finding that emerged from both the quantitative and qualitative data shows
that one of the major challenges of identifying homeless students is due to the lack of awareness
of the definition of homelessness, specifically the doubled-up category. To understand awareness
of the definition in schools, teachers and staff members responded to the question, “If you do
have students living with relatives or friends or other families due to economic reasons or in a
hotel, motel, shelter, street, car, or campground, do you consider them homeless?” As seen in
151
Table 4.4, although all categories constitute homelessness according to the MVA, many teachers
were unaware of the definition of homelessness, specifically regarding the doubled-up category.
Identification through registration. Although both districts relied mainly on the
registration process to identify homeless students, the level at which the students are identified
differed between the districts based on their structural organization. In the low–middle SES
district, homeless students are identified at the school level when the registration process occurs.
In the high SES district, this identification occurs at the district level, because registration
happens at the district office. Despite this difference, the process of identification was described
similarly across districts and schools. Students are identified mainly during the registration
process when they or their families are requested to provide proof of residence. When families
struggle to provide this evidence, it is 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 the registration forms (online and in person), neither districts
had a specific homelessness question. Although in many districts, registration forms include
specific questions regarding homelessness categories, both districts in this study did not include
that question in their form. That presents a challenge, especially while aiming to classify the
doubled-up category. In both districts, multiple participants mentioned that students and their
152
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 addresses the
reason for doubling up.
The fact that identification through registration occurs at different levels means that
different staff members are responsible for identification of homeless students. In the low–
medium SES district, the registration occurs at the school level. There, the front office personnel
is tasked with registration. Hence, the secretaries and registration office workers are usually on
the front line of identifying and engaging with students experiencing homelessness.
In the high SES district, the registration process occurs at the district level. Similar to the
low–medium SES district, the district-level personnel then becomes the front line in engaging
with homeless students. In both cases, teachers and principals often remain outside of the circle
of information based on registration. Despite the fact that in both districts, the information is
inserted to a system that all staff members can access, the majority of the school staff does not do
so.
In both districts and across all schools, homeless students are usually identified during the
registration process. This means 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 rest mainly at
the school site, including staff members who are usually not involved in identification during the
registration process, such as teachers and administrators at the school level.
153
This theme presents some of the most striking findings of this study, including the lack of
awareness of the doubled-up category and gaps between the number of actual and currently
identified homeless students. Identification is the first step in providing services to homeless
students and improving their school experience. The following theme demonstrates the next
important step in understanding student homelessness: the school experience of homeless
students.
Theme 2: School Experience of Homeless Students from Diverse Socioecological and
Organizational Perspectives
The school experience of homeless students expands beyond MVA’s focus on education
and academic achievement, because they are often at risk of multiple school adverse behaviors
(see Chapter 2 and 3; Moore et al., 2017). To reiterate, this is one of the first studies to focus on
the school experience of elementary and middle school homeless students.
The findings show that homeless students’ school experience is similar across all schools
and districts, regardless of the school- or district-level SES. This means that the overarching
expectation that a difference would exist between the districts was not confirmed and that the
SES of the districts did not matter with relation to the school experience of homeless students.
Findings from the survey (Table 4.5) indicate two meaningful trends across all schools and
districts. First, many teachers and staff members who participated in the surveys stated that they
have no knowledge regarding different school risk behaviors when it comes to homeless
students. This might be related to the fact that they are not aware of student homelessness and
therefore do not make the connection between those school risk behaviors and the housing
situation of the students. Second, teachers and staff members who reported on school risk
154
behaviors among their homeless students indicated that homeless students are at high risk of
experiencing adverse behaviors in school and the classroom.
Specifically, teachers and staff members in each of the schools were asked in an
anonymous survey: “Thinking about the school experience of students experiencing
homelessness (based on the McKinney-Vento Act definition), would you say your students cope
with the following?” (Bullying, Isolation, Social Emotional Difficulties, Violence and Outbursts,
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 the grade levels, i.e., elementary school versus middle school. The middle school
interviewees discussed more extreme forms of self-harm and suicidal ideation among their
students compared to reports from staff members working in elementary schools. Despite that
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.
155
Where am I going to get my next meal? And where am I going to lay my head at night?
… And they’re coming to school tired because she’s sleeping in a car all night long with
her brother and two parents.
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 chucks out of her eyebrows. One I think is completely
gone. So you can tell that it’s having an effect on her. … She shuts down. She won’t
do—she doesn’t do sometimes her school work, or it takes her forever to complete an
assignment. And I think part of that is just, she’s fully capable. It’s not that she’s not
capable. I just think she can’t focus to do it.
An administrator from Elementary School 3 stated:
I definitely see the social emotional piece, the one student that we have here now that is
identified. He does have some social and emotional struggles. He’s brand new to me this
year. I don’t know though if that is a direct result of the fact that his family has been
couch-surfing for the last couple of years. It could be a variety of other things. It could be
something in his familial history.
In the low–medium SES district, an elementary school participant described similar behaviors:
Sometimes I think there are some social and emotional issues. I think some of these kids
can see that the other students can purchase things and sometimes I think they could see
more confidence in other students, self-esteem, consistency, ability to be a part of a sport
that they cannot, and they have that transportation or they have a group of friends that
may be able to get together quite often, and for them to explore their personal feelings
and be out there with that group.
156
In the middle school, behaviors were described as more extreme and more evident, whereas
interviewees at the elementary level didn’t 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. And that’s
always distressing because I don’t—you just go like, “Really? Like this is like three years
of your life. Like you’re going to get through this, I promise you. Hold on tight. I promise
you, we’re all were there. It all sucked for all of us.” 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 that the school experience of homeless students is multifaceted and
goes far beyond lower academic achievement, absenteeism, and tardiness. 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. Similar to Theme 1, the lack of
awareness of homeless students was evident, because teachers were struggling to report on their
homeless students’ behaviors. This is crucial because schools are also uniquely situated to help
these students; therefore, improving awareness of homeless students in schools and their
157
behaviors could be an important initial step in better understanding student homelessness and
supporting homeless students.
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. Similar to the two previous themes, this finding also contradicts the expectation that a
difference would exist between the districts or schools based on their SES context.
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 regarding challenges of working with homeless
students, teachers and staff members reported that immigrant or illegal status prevents families
from seeking help, many homeless students are immigrants, and Hispanic culture is related to
being afraid or too proud to ask for help. This was also prevalent at the district level, where
personnel members also described the majority of 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. But definitely, you know, out of the 90 kids that are transitional, I
would say probably, you know, 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
158
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, 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:
You know it’s—I think it’s kind of a mix right now from what I see. I don’t know
necessarily, I mean, I guess like our “lives with” we could take a look and see like what
the ethnicity you know issue is with that. But for the true McKinney-Vento, I mean I’ve
had one was a White girl and then the other one that’s kind of couch-surfing is two
brothers, African American. So it isn’t—I don’t—not that I’ve been able to really say that
it’s one particular.
Yeah, that’s really hard for us to tell that. But yeah, 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
159
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, staff members 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 were facing 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. This is an important aspect to consider
regarding the unique situation of doubled-up students.
The fact that districts and schools share multiple challenges, regardless of their SES
context, indicates that the findings point to shared challenges across many schools and districts
across the United States. Nevertheless, differences also existed between the districts, as the
following section demonstrates. The following themes illustrate differences between the districts
based on their contextual SES and partially confirm the study expectation .
160
Theme 4: District-Level Analyses and Findings Regarding Attitudes toward Poverty,
Housing Instability, and Homelessness
Students who experienced homelessness in both districts were nested in schools and
communities. The school- and district-level SES provide a different contextual environment for
students and the schools that serve them. The findings show that the perception and attitudes
toward homelessness in each of those layers, and how they interact, play a pivotal role for
homeless students.
Differences emerged when comparing the SES context of each district and the
community’s approach toward poverty and homelessness. This finding partially confirms the
overarching expectation that differences would emerge between the districts based on their SES
context. Although these differences did not affect the identification of homeless students, this
finding indicates a core dissimilarity between the districts that is important to consider while
conceptualizing the role of school for homeless students and developing services.
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 to 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 who experience homelessness and a
161
lobby of interfaith organizations that advances services for people who experience homelessness
in the area. Additionally, a recent online news piece captured the current processes occurring in
the city with regard to homelessness:
“The vast majority of the homeless are from this area,” said [identity blinded]. “This is
their community.”
The forum was moderated by [blinded] radio and, in addition to [blinded],
panelists were [blinded], the city’s neighborhood community services director; [blinded]
of the city conference and visitors bureau; and [blinded], of the city police department’s
homeless outreach team.
One of the most popular ideas among panelists and the audience members was a
suggestion that all the services needed by the homeless be combined in a single location.
Many said it’s too difficult for someone, often with no vehicle, to go from place to place
to find housing, look for a job, get health care or counseling, and more. (article published
February 2017 by regional news source)
Multiple participants both at 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 students who experience homelessness. The goal of these services is to
serve the entirety of the community, not only homeless students. Therefore, the district has 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
162
medical support and those kind of things, and so those are things that the site coordinators
would work with a family, and they need that kind of support from the outside agencies.
Additionally, each school has a homeless coordinator assigned by the district offices.
This shows a high degree of awareness of the problem in the district. Furthermore, in each school
in the low–medium SES district, the school homeless coordinator is charged with facilitating
relationships with agencies in the vicinity while building a network relevant to the school site. In
both schools, it was evident that this work often strongly relied on the initiative and willingness
of the coordinator, which is further discussed in a subsequent section on supporting homeless
students.
This reflects keen awareness at the school and school 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 expectation, 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. The main focus of the schools in this lower-income district was to go beyond
academic issues alone and help with the SES challenges that families face when experiencing
poverty and homelessness as a subset of poverty. This was commonly mentioned and evident in
meetings and services.
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 creates an awareness of poverty and
163
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 then 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 and just a lot of kids, you know, just a sheer number of
students that we serve is overwhelming and all you need to do is walk out at lunch, you
know, and there’s like a sea of kids you’re trying not to get over by them.
In the higher SES district, the community’s perception of homelessness was presented
mainly as negative and as 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 city, only about 30 articles were found, far
fewer than in the lower SES district. The majority of the 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. A recent online article presented
the mayor’s attitude:
But now, the city will act. The City Council is set to vote on whether to pay an outside
company to come in and help clean up the area. “We find that the sooner you can clean
up, these encampments don’t have a chance to get established and grow,” the city Mayor
164
[blinded] said. She added her city isn’t the only city struggling with how to help the
homeless while keeping neighborhoods safe and clean.
“It’s when we get into things like trespassing, or public drunkenness, or drug
possession — we’re finding a lot of them have open warrants. Things like that. Then
that’s the problem,” she said. (article published August 2017 by regional news source)
In terms of local services, the region features no homelessness shelters and only one
housing project. Often, homeless students and their families have to travel to neighboring cities
to receive services. In their interviews, district-level administrators and pupil personnel service
providers addressed the issue of the outside community and their perception of homelessness as 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 is also the—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. But I think when you get down to people that are working with
people like teachers and principals, they just want to help the families. But I think out
there in the community, there is that perception.
This perception at the community also affected how the district staff perceived homeless students
and the ability to provide them with services. A district-level participant in the child welfare and
attendance office stated:
I think the unique nature of this community is that we have so few MVA kids, that they
almost become like an afterthought, not that it is not the same in other districts. I just
165
know, that for instance, if you look at a district like [blinded], they have a significantly
higher number of kids that fall under the MVA than we do. Another district, which is a
much larger district but by percentage, has a significantly higher [prevalence of homeless
students]—I think they dedicate more time and energy for having things set up for them
because they have of have them, you know. We rely on outside services to kind of
provide for our kids, so, it becomes very difficult.
When you look at like the ratings of the city, you know, they’re in like the top 10
places to raise your family. So they have this image to protect. So I think that’s a little bit
why they [the district] sweep a lot of stuff under the rug.
These quotes exemplify that regardless of the district’s intentions to support homeless students,
the outside community affects the availability of services and attitudes toward homelessness.
Variations between schools in the two 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 4.1, 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 and that we are the 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 reflect more of what the state looks like. We don’t look
166
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. Even our next school
that’s Title I, we look very different even from them.
This was also described by a teacher in Elementary School 2:
Our school is close in its socioeconomics to the bordering district. so we’re unique in our
district but we are not in comparison to other districts around us, so it’s kind of a weird
situation, and I think the district does as much as it can, considering it is only two out of
the 17 schools in the district, for us. But I think as a school, we do pretty darn good job
for not having a district that deals with these kind of schools across the board.
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.
Theme 5: District Organizational Structure and Demographics as Forces that Affect the
Role of School for Homeless Students
As Table 4.1 shows, a striking difference existed in the SES between the districts, as
reflected by the number of students eligible for FRL and the median income in each area. Other
structural and organizational differences between the districts were initially identified based on
their local policy design regarding homeless students. This finding supports the overarching
expectation that differences would exist between the districts based on their SES.
According to the MVA, states, districts, and schools must follow several mandates
regarding homeless students to qualify for the MVA funds. First, during the time they experience
homelessness, students should be permitted to stay in their school of origin if they choose, and
167
the districts are required to provide transportation to enable this. Additionally, districts are
required to identify a district homeless liaison who is responsible for implementing the MVA and
ensuring sites compliance with the federal law. The district liaison is also the contact person for
school sites and families. Moreover, when students are identified as homeless, their enrollment is
immediate and services must be provided for them not to be segregated based on their
homelessness status.
Overall, both districts were compliant with the MVA. They both identified a district
homeless liaison, allowed for immediate enrollment when a family or a 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.
District Organization: Centralized versus Decentralized Approach to Service
Provision to Homeless Students. The overall organization of the districts could be distinguished
by how they organize their service delivery, whether centralized or decentralized. According to
the district homeless liaison, the low–medium SES recognized the homelessness problem in the
district a few years ago. Based on that recognition, a few changes were made 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:
168
For the most part, probably 98% of the interaction [between homeless families and the
school system] 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 of the services, including identification, are expected to occur at the site
level. Figure 4.1 shows the multiple personnel members in the school and district involved in
delivering services to homeless students, with most of them being at the school level.
Additionally, other services are available for all students (homeless and nonhomeless) 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 schools at the center of communication for students.
The fact services feature an organizational structure does not mean, however, that all
individuals in the school know whom they should turn to if they identify a homeless student. In
fact, based on the survey, there was a lack of awareness among teachers in both schools of both
the district and school homeless liaison. 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).
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 the
elementary school (Elementary School 1), although not all participants were aware of the
169
homeless liaison, they did mention the homeless coordinator as a point of reference for service
provision.
The findings show that although the low–medium SES district had a decentralized
approach to addressing homelessness in schools based on intentional forethought, individuals in
the schools, and particularly teachers, were not aware of this structure and whom they should
turn to if they identify homeless students or their needs. As one teacher who responded to the
survey stated: “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.”
As seen in Figure 4.2, 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 (as presented in the
figure by the dashed line) 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.
This was also captured in an interview at the low SES elementary school:
170
I know at the district level, they used to offer them—there was—if they needed some
clothing and stuff like that. We—they would help out with that, but I’m not aware of
anything else that the district offers them at the site. There isn’t a whole lot here other—I
mean, unless there’s a service that they need, that’s kind of a secondary to that.
This occurred despite the fact that services were provided at the school district level to some
extent, such as transportation, clothing supplies, and FRL. Additionally, a district-level staff
member mentioned that a lack of communication exists between the schools and district, and that
even if the will to assist students exists, this issue may be an obstacle.
Moreover, there were multiple district-level staff members who work with homeless
students and their families, but they were not in close communication with one another. Each is
responsible for a different element in serving homeless students (as captured in Figure 4.2). All
participants at the district level agreed that much more needs to be done for homeless students.
However, the context of the community, a lack of awareness of poverty and homelessness
seemed to be a barrier that might have led to this centralized system organization.
Differences in the identification process between districts based on SES context.
Despite similarities between the districts in the identification process at registration, differences
existed between the districts and schools regarding unique practices for identifying homeless
students based on their SES context. These practices are connected to the awareness of poverty
and homelessness and perceptions of homelessness at the school and district levels.
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
171
instability and asked students directly 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. And it could
be—it doesn’t mean like they brought a gun to school. It just 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, it’s like throwing themselves so far in that it’s uncomfortable and it’s weird.
School employees relied on an intentional line of questions related to housing situations
and the home context when 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 this school, the 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
172
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.
The organizational structure of service provision to homeless students also guided the
manner in which students were identified, awareness of homeless students, and intervention in
their school experiences. Despite this fact, 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 awareness of
poverty and the structural organization of service provision to homeless students.
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 in light of the
situation and 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, yet were involved based on their relationships with homeless students.
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. This
network had been built through their years of experience and work with homeless students. Both
school-based homeless coordinators created a network of school-related organizations and
agencies in addition to agencies linked to the districts. It was also done through their personal
involvement with interfaith organizations and coalitions. This resulted in donations of clothes,
173
backpacks, and shoes and additional referrals to services in the community, as described by one
of the coordinators:
I have a list of services that the district gave them to me. At the very beginning, they have
a meeting at the beginning of the school year and—anyway, but I have a list of resources
and sometimes I’ve just had them over the years. … Like, just certain things and food or
whatever. I mean there’s a number, too, people can call—211. Also, I volunteer myself
for the Assistance League, which is a great organization. They do a lot for kids for the
three cities in this community.
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 was 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 was somebody he trusted, you know. And then I had another kid—special education,
you know—whose parents basically decided they had enough of him and decided to kick
him out. He was living on somebody’s sofa, taking care of his own needs and anything
else, then all of the sudden—I don’t remember exactly what happened to him, but 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.
174
And I would see him a lot across the street, and I asked him, “If you want, I can bring
these things over to you,” and he said, “No, no, I’ll come and pick them up from you.”
And it was quite a bit of stuff, and he came over, and I said, “So where are you living
exactly?” And I said, “Do you want me to give you a ride? That’s a lot of stuff.” “No, I
can do it.” So he took the stuff—it was probably around 4:15 in the afternoon—and I left
here about 15 minutes later and I was driving by the street, and it was interesting to see
him walking down the street, six bags of stuff—he stops to put them down and pick them
back.
Additionally, the district homeless liaison described how staff members had to be creative to
gain socioemotional support for students and carefully plan the hiring of a licensed school social
worker who could supervise master’s-level interns to support individuals in need.
Staff members and teachers in both schools in the high SES district were innovative when
working with homeless students. However, 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 and low SES 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 2 years prior 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:
175
[I donate] everything I can, and ... my parents, God bless them, 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. And … help her family.
In addition to individual initiatives, the school had created an organizational structure,
which the attendance clerk, who had been working in the school for nearly 20 years, had been
organizing, serving as an unofficial school homeless coordinator. She described the structure as
follows:
So, years back we have a—we would provide Christmas for our kids. I would—I pretty
much know who is low income, who’s really struggling, and who’s trying, and just
because I know all the families. So, the services that I myself 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 McKinney-Vento. 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 was fortunate enough to be the health clerk for 5 years here, so I know where
to send them for immunizations, 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 and where they can get stuff.
If they can’t—because we have bread on Tuesdays behind at the park, the food—the
176
bread truck is up there, and you don’t have to prove any kind of thing. You can get day-
old bread and bread and muffins and whatever else it is the truck comes for that.
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.
At the school level, positive school climate and a welcoming environment were often
mentioned in interviews as strengths of the school that indirectly supported homeless students.
Specifically, when asked about school-level strengths related to supporting homeless students,
participants mentioned donations from community organizations and parents, collaboration
between staff members, and donations from the school staff.
This theme highlights the fact that every staff member who participated in this study and
worked directly 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, which has important meaning because all participants
were uniquely situated to support homeless students. However, this theme also illustrates that the
lack of organizational structure led to a lack of communication and awareness regarding
individual and collective organized efforts to support homeless students.
Discussion
This study made important contributions to several bodies of literature, given its position
at the intersection of the education reform literature, child and family homelessness literature,
177
and organizational literature. It also illuminated the mechanisms and forces behind the
challenges that schools and districts face in addressing student homelessness. This study focused
on elementary and middle schools, examining the school experience of homeless students based
on contextual factors. It is one of the first studies to center on this population and the unique
category of doubled-up homeless students and their families.
This study showed that despite differences in their SES context, districts and schools did
not differ with regard to 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 despite the fact that 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 that current policies that focus on providing equal opportunities
for education for homeless students are necessary, but not sufficient (P. M. Miller, 2011).
Despite these overarching similarities between the districts, the processes that guide 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. These origins were rooted in SES contextual
factors, and therefore require the development of local interventions, alongside mandatory
federal and state interventions.
178
Ground-up, local models of service for homeless students, which take into consideration
the unique conditions and needs of districts and schools while implementing, monitoring, and
aligning with mandatory federal and state policy requirements, can effectively improve equal
opportunities for education for students who experience homelessness. Based on these findings,
the solution cannot be one size fits all. Instead, when developing policies to address the unique
needs and experiences of homeless students, the embedded nature of schools and districts in
communities and cities must be addressed. Hence, mapping needs in each context and comparing
contexts and embedded units are crucial steps in addressing the needs of homeless students.
The differences between the districts suggest that their needs in addressing the homeless
student population vary based on their context. Specifically, the low–medium SES district
requires intervention mainly around training and communication between the different levels and
staff members. This means that the staff needs training about existing services, organizational
structure, definition of homelessness, and awareness of homeless students in schools. It also
requires the inclusion of all staff members in the school and district in the process of
identification and awareness of the unique needs of homeless students, especially teachers, who
often remain outside of the circle of information and may have meaningful information regarding
their students who experience homelessness.
The high SES district requires 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 regarding student homelessness, especially to decentralize
services to be formally delivered both at the school and district levels, with a clear hierarchy
regarding the different roles of each staff member in service delivery.
179
In addition, similar to 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 Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and the MVA (1987).
The MVA, as revised by the Every Student Succeeds Act (2105) and the LCAP, present a
unique window of opportunity to better serve homeless students. Districts are now mandated
with more discretion than ever regarding how funds are spent to strengthen schools and districts
based on local needs. Additionally, school districts have more opportunities to establish and
support programs that address the needs of the most oppressed students. In integrating insights
from the education reform literature, two things are worth considering in relation to the findings
of this study.
First, despite not being the focus of this study, this study touched upon the
implementation of the MVA as a high-level federal policy in both districts, including the manner
in which actors at the district and school levels are responsible for not only the implementation
of the policy but also adapting and creating policies to advance local interests (Marsh, 2016;
Spillane, 1996). Because the MVA’s mandatory requirements focus mainly on access to school,
states and districts struggle when it comes to the creation of services that advance the ability of
students to succeed in school. The findings show that staff members at the district and schools
levels have forged unique initiatives and organized in a structural manner to provide services to
homeless students, despite the fact that these elements are missing from the federal MVA policy.
180
Although representing a narrower perspective of the situation, given the federal and local
policies to which districts are required to adhere, all actors matter, and their understanding and
interpretation of the situation should be included in studies exploring implementation of the
MVA.
Second, in broadening this perspective, previous literature on the politics of education
reform highlighted the role of broad community politics and stakeholders in advancing reforms
(Stone, Henig, Jones, & Pierannunzi, 2001) and the fact that multiple actors in the local nested
context play a major role in decision making regarding local education policies (Marsh, 2016).
The importance of community politics was highly supported in this study and one of the
motivating forces in the shaping and delivery of services to homeless students.
Astor and Benbenishty’s (2018) heuristic model addresses this complexity and expands
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. In
applying this model to the findings of this study, contextual factors clearly influenced the
districts’ approach to homeless students and ability to support them. However, schools,
principals, teachers, and staff members created services to support homeless students based on
their internal dynamics, creating a bottom-up effect if used correctly.
The overarching goal of this study was to investigate how the local SES context affects
the delivery of services to homeless students and to understand the role of school for homeless
students based on this context. This included contrasting two comparable districts that differed
181
based on their SES context. The following section addresses this overarching expectation by
examining differences and similarities between the districts.
Shared Challenges across Schools and Districts Regarding Student Homelessness
Homeless students across all districts and schools were underidentified and hence
underserved, and experienced multiple risk behaviors, both inside and outside of school. These
shared challenges went beyond the local context, as supported in previous literature (Hallett et
al., 2015; P. M. Miller, 2011). Despite the fact that these districts differed in their identification
mechanisms and structure, they shared the challenge of poor awareness of the definition of
homelessness, which remains at the root of the identification challenge.
Additionally, this is one of the first studies to address the school experience of
elementary and middle school homeless students. Similar to findings regarding the school
experience of high school students (see Chapters 2 and 3), the findings show that homeless
students are at high risk of experiencing bullying, violence, socioemotional difficulties, and
isolation in school at the elementary and middle school levels as well. Often, these behaviors
were described in interviews as a way to seek attention from classmates or teachers, and as a way
to identify homeless students. This finding provides new dimensions to the understanding of
student homelessness that surpass the limited and traditional understanding of this problem from
the perspective of academic achievement or MVA implementation. Despite differing SES
contexts, homeless students in these districts were at risk of adverse school-related outcomes.
A holistic approach that focuses on the school experience of homeless students could
benefit students and the schools in which they are embedded. In particular, gaining information
about homeless students in elementary and middle school and their school experience at the local
and state levels could generate support for grants, resources, and funding not directly addressing
182
the issue of homelessness and that could advance the entire school community. Advancing
school climate and SEL would be beneficial to the entire school and could advance students’
school experience and as a result, their success. Expanding the framework and including local
and statewide data collection could provide tools for establishing and documenting the urgent
need among schools for support in their important work with homeless students.
Additionally, all schools and districts described an intersection of immigration status and
homelessness, specifically with regard to 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 [ICPH],
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, such as language
barriers, fear of deportation, and migratory labor patterns, which may result in lower service use
and subsequent underrepresentation in homelessness statistics (ICPH, 2015). In addition,
regarding the doubled-up category, which represents the majority of 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 (ICPH, 2015), to reduce
their likelihood of living on the streets. However, this increases the likelihood that Hispanic
students and families will live in doubled-up situations, while being isolated from services for
183
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, especially in California. Although children have the right to an elementary and
secondary education regardless of their immigration status across the United States, there is a
lack of rapport and trust with social agents, including schools. Recently, the Trump
administration rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which only
increased the fear of immigrant families to share their circumstances with school officials, as
mentioned by several of the study participants. In California, the California Student Aid
Commission, California Dream Act, and Assembly Bill 540 allowed undocumented students
who meet certain criteria to receive state-administered financial aid. This means that unlike
homeless immigrant students in other states, those in California might have better trajectories
and more opportunities in higher education. Hence, schools and districts should be aware of the
unique needs of immigrant and undocumented homeless students and create services to address
those issues in a culturally sensitive manner.
These shared challenges reveal that in addition to policies and interventions that need to
be tailored based on the unique local context, there are also alarming findings across settings that
demonstrate the need to extend the scope of the MVA to include policies that specifically
address the underidentification challenge and the intersection of homelessness and immigration
status. Moreover, the definition of homelessness, and specifically the doubled-up category,
should be emphasized in training programs for teachers, principals, and staff members. Even
though no single plan fits the needs of all districts and schools, bottom-up policies and services
184
should be highly encouraged and shifts in federal policies should be advanced in conjunction
with local policies, especially when the findings echo across all contexts.
District- and School-Level SES and Response to Homeless Students
From a wide perspective, both districts described in this study may seem similar, because
they shared various difficulties in addressing their homelessness problem. However, after
investigating the mechanisms behind these challenges, this study revealed that these districts and
schools differed based on their local SES context, perceptions of homelessness and poverty, and
organizational structure at the school and district levels.
First, a 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. As captured in the heuristic model of Astor and
Benbenishty (2018), multiple exterior units play an integral part in shaping district- and school-
level decisions and organizational structure, including historical norms, watershed events, laws
and policies, and national, state, and local stakeholders. For example, the fact that both districts
were interested in collaborating to learn about their student homelessness was based on
incentives provided by the LCAP, which has enabled one district to secure $1.8 million to
support homeless students.
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
185
their expected budget cuts and input from community stakeholders, services directed specifically
to low SES students such as English tutoring, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
a foster youth liaison were removed from their new LCAP. These findings may seem
counterintuitive, because high SES districts would be expected to be able to support struggling
students more than low–medium SES districts. Based on the heuristic model, the high SES
district also has the potential to influence the external community and raise awareness of the
needs of low SES families in the area.
Second, drilling down to 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. In many
ways, this school can be described as an outlier in the district, and despite the fact that 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 homelessness
among students.
Third, 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. An additional
difference between the schools was based on the grade level of students. Although both surveys
and findings from the interview indicated that homeless students experience multiple risk factors
in school, at the middle school level, the risk behaviors were more extreme and even life
threatening. Because homeless students are often underidentified, this study did not capture all
186
homeless students’ school experiences, especially those who were not identified and do not stand
out based on their behaviors in school. Future research is needed to further understand the school
experience of homeless students at the elementary and middle school levels. However, these
findings indicate that the school’s local SES context matters as much as the district’s, and that
interventions designed to support homeless students should account for different risks that
students may be coping with in different age groups.
Homeless students remain an understudied and overlooked population that endures
multiple challenges and difficulties, as do the schools and districts that serve them, regarding
equal access and opportunities to succeed in the education system. Although all participants in
this study, at both the school and district levels, aimed to address the challenges of homeless
students and provide them with an equal opportunity for education, the findings show that
homeless students’ challenges are deep rooted and shaped by internal and external forces.
Schools are only one social institution with which homeless children and families interact, but
they play a major role for homeless students and their families and be the last social institution
with which families interact before disengaging from all social institutions and services.
As this discussion suggests, meeting the substantial challenges involved in building
schools and districts that support homeless students and establishing broader changes ensure all
students flourish will require district policies and practices that explicitly address issues of
poverty, injustice, and the role of districts and schools in the community, and that advocate for
and pursue school and social transformation.
Conclusion and Implications
The increased number of homeless students attending public schools across the nation
means that districts and schools are facing the challenge of providing an equal opportunity for
187
education for these students. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the multiple nested factors
that influence how districts, schools, and staff members provide services to homeless students.
Moreover, it is crucial to understand the school experience of homeless students as shaped by
these services or the lack thereof. Regarding the implications of this study, one message stands
out: The underidentification and lack of awareness of homeless students runs across schools and
districts, regardless of their contextual SES. This indicates that perceptions of student
homelessness are a national problem that cuts across different areas of the United States.
However, this study also illustrated that the local context matters for each of the nested
layers that affect the lives of homeless students. To date, research on student homelessness has
largely focused on academic achievement and MVA implementation, while often disregarding
the embedded nature of schools. Despite researchers’ motivation to improve access to and
success in education among homeless students, multiple factors have not been included in
previous studies, especially the local SES context and the nestedness of schools. At the same
time, the body of research on education reform and recent policies at the federal and state levels
have highlighted the importance of local factors in addressing the needs of students. This study
provided evidence of the influence of community politics and state and federal laws on each
district’s service provision to homeless students, and how local design of organizational
structures influences the role of school for homeless students.
This study contributed to the understanding of challenges faced by homeless students,
especially the multiple forces affecting the ability and willingness of district- and school-level
actors to support them. The LCAP focuses specifically on the needs of districts based on their
local contextual factors, providing an opportunity for districts to focus on highly oppressed and
high-risk populations to receive funding and design services to support them, while also
188
monitoring these services and their impact on students. This is especially relevant to the major
challenge of identification of homeless students. Based on the findings of this study, both
districts are underidentifying their homeless students. The inclusion of new identification
methods such as biannual surveys of all students and families, detailed registration forms,
teachers’ reports, and increased awareness across the school community could result in funding
that could dramatically improve the ability of schools and districts to support these students.
This study also has several important implications for policy makers, especially in the
context of accountability as required by the LCAP and recent amendments to the MVA.
Accountability requires districts and schools to collect data and information about their homeless
students, their academic achievement, and the impact of services provided to them. Creating a
district-wide system to collect information about academic achievement, bullying, mental health
problems, and additional risk factors, while also examining strategies that work well would
benefit schools and districts for multiple reasons. First, this would be an important first step,
alongside identification, to learn about the challenges faced by homeless students and the schools
that serve them. Additionally, this information and documentation would assist districts with
receiving funds based on the LCAP, but also securing grants to address issues that intersect with
homelessness such as bullying. Furthermore, in addition to examining the implementation of the
MVA through these processes, districts would also be able to learn about successful
interventions at the local level and scale them up to the district level (Astor & Benbenishty,
2017). The findings show that student homelessness and its implications go beyond issues
addressed in the MVA, and for homeless student to have a truly equal opportunity for education,
the act should address and include mandatory services based on unique risk factors and
189
challenges faced by homeless students, especially by addressing the goal of school success
among these students.
Understanding districts’ and schools’ local context and the role of contextual SES for
homeless students provides insights that bring us one step closer to addressing challenges and
realizing the potential role of districts and schools in advancing not only their services for
homeless students, but also our society by providing equal opportunity for education to homeless
students, those living in poverty, immigrant students, and all other students in our nation.

190
References
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:
Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28–38.
doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2014). Supporting military-connected students: The role of
school social work. Children & Schools, 36, 5–7. doi:10.1093/cs/cdu001
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence:
Building a safe school climate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The
promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 16, 233–244. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x
Brooks Nelson, E. D. (2016). Examining healthcare utilization patterns, school attendance,
behavior, and academic performance among school-aged children identified as homeless
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI
No. 1854845511)
Chanmugam, A., Kemter, A. J., & Goodwin, K. H. (2015). Educational services for children in
domestic violence shelters: Perspectives of shelter personnel. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 32, 405–415. doi:10.1007/s10560-015-0380-x
Duffield, B., & Lovell, P. (2008). The economic crisis hits home: The unfolding increase in child
& youth homelessness. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Homeless Children and Youth & First Focus.
191
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub L. No. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. ch. 28 § 1001 et seq. 20 U.S.C. ch.
70 (2015)Groton, D., Teasley, M. L., & Canfield, J. P. (2013). Working with homeless
school-aged children: Barriers to school social work practice. School Social Work
Journal, 37(2), 37– 51.
Hallett, R. E. (2012). Living doubled-up: Influence of residential environment on educational
participation. Education and Urban Society, 44, 371–391.
doi:10.1177/0013124510392778
Hallett, R. E. & Skrla, L. (2017). Serving students who are homeless: A resource guide for
schools, districts, and educational leaders. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hallett, R. E., Skrla, L., & Low, J. (2015). That is not what homeless is: A school district’s
journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and economically displaced children and
youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 671–692.
doi:10.1080/09518398.2015.1017859
Hinrichsen, C., & Min, K. (2012). Schools stabilize families: Back to school for homeless
children. Retrieved from http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/09/Schools-
Stabilize-Families--Back-to-School-for-Homeless-Kids
Hyatt, S., Walzer, B., & Julianelle, P. 2014. California ’s homeless students: A growing
population. Sacramento, CA: California Homeless Youth Project. Retrieved from
http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/CaliforniasHomelessStudents_AGrowing
Population.pdf
192
Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness. (2015). Trends in student and family
homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/national/american-almanac-of-
family-homelessness-2015/trends-in-student-and-family-homelessness/
Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness. (2016). Texas has over 100,000 homeless
students statewide. Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/national/texas/
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H., & Israel, N. (2006). Services to homeless students and families:
The McKinney-Vento Act and its implications for school social work practice. Children
& Schools, 28, 37–44. doi:10.1093/cs/28.1.37
Julianelle, P. (2008). Using what we know: Supporting the education of unaccompanied
homeless youth. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7, 477–536.
Kitchenham, A. D. (2010). Mixed methods in case study research. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E.
Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 561–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Madson, M. J. (2016). An examination of high-school size, socioeconomic status, and advanced
level educational opportunities in Pennsylvania public high schools: A quantitative study
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI
No. 1783595518)
Masten, A. S., Fiat, A. E., Labella, M. H., & Strack, R. A. (2015). Educating homeless and
highly mobile students: Implications of research on risk and resilience. School
Psychology Review, 44, 315–330. doi:10.17105/spr-15-0068.1
Marsh, J. A. (2016). The political dynamics of district reform: The form and fate of the Los
Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Teachers College Record, 118(9), 21519.
193
Marsh, J. A., & Hall, M. (2017). Challenges and choices: A multidistrict analysis of statewide
mandated democratic engagement. American Educational Research Journal. Advance
online publication. doi:10.3102/0002831217734803
McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. §
11301 et seq. (1987).
Miller, E. J., & Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of organization. London, United Kingdom:
Tavistock.
Miller, P. M. (2011). An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the
homeless education situation. Educational Policy, 25, 424–450.
doi:10.1177/0895904809351692
Miller, P. M., & Bourgeois, A. K. (2013). Considering the geographic dispersion of homeless
and highly mobile students and families. Educational Researcher, 42, 242–249.
doi:10.3102/0013189X12474064
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing:
Principles, techniques and analysis (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
Moore, H. (2017, November). School-attending homeless youths ’ substance use off and on
school grounds: A California-wide comparison study. Oral presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Atlanta, GA.
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
194
National Center for Homeless Education. (2014). Education for homeless children and youth,
consolidated state performance report data, school years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-
13. Retrieved from http://center.serve.org/nche/downloads/data-comp-1011-1213.pdf
National Center for Homeless Education. (2016). Federal data summary: School years 2012-13
to 2014-15: Education for homeless children and youth. Retrieved from
https://nche.ed.gov/downloads/data-comp-1213-1415.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Homeless children and youth in public schools.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tgh.asp
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2012). Data collection summary from school year 2010-
2011federally required data collection for the McKinney-Vento Education Assistance
Improvements Act of 2001 and comparison of the SY 2008-09, SY 2009-10 and SY 2010-
11 data collections. Washington, DC: Author.
Owens, A., Reardon, S. F., & Jencks, C. (2016). Income segregation between schools and school
districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1159–1197.
doi:10.3102/0002831216652722
Padgett, D. K. (2012). Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School district socioeconomic status, race, and academic achievement.
Retrieved from
https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20district%20ses%20and%20achiev
ement%20discussion%20draft%20april2016.pdf
Scott, R. W. (2008). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
195
Shea, N. M., Zetlin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2010). Improving school stability: An
exploratory study of the work of the AB 490 liaisons in California. Children and Youth
Services Review, 32, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.013
Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63–87. doi:10.1177/0895904896010001004
Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The
politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Thompson, J. A., & Davis, S. M. (2003). Educating homeless children: Perceptions of school
homeless liaisons. Poster presented at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Society for
Community Research and Action, Las Vegas, NV.
Tobin, K. J. (2011). Identifying best practices for homeless students (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 907106135)
Wilkins, B. T., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P. (2016). Homeless liaisons’
awareness about the implementation of the McKinney–Vento Act. Children & Schools,
38, 57–64. doi:10.1093/cs/cdv041
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Zickmund, S. (2015). Qualitative coding 101: Strategies for coding texts and using a qualitative
software program. Retrieved from
http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/hsrm-
061410.pdf

196
Table 4.1. Characteristics of Case Study Districts and Schools
Low–Medium SES District High SES District
Area median household income $58,949
a
$83,840
a

Students 21,024 29,917
Schools 25 30
Free and reduced-price lunch 58.1%, n = 12,222 23.4%, n= 6,997
Title 1 schools 25 3
Identified homeless students 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%
Identified homeless students 8 13 3 1
Note. ES = elementary school; MS = middle school. Data based on information from school districts and the
Ed-Data Partnership.
a
Data from 2016 U.S. Census.

197
Table 4.2. Data Sources
Low–Medium SES District High SES District
Qualitative 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 minutes and 1.5 hours.
District level: homeless liaison District level: homeless liaison,
district social worker, director of
special programs, family
resources personnel member
Principal,
assistant
principal,
attendance clerk,
school attendance
review board,
health clerk,
school counselor,
registration
official
Principal,
attendance
clerk, health
clerk,
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
Note. ES = elementary school; MS = middle school.
198
Table 4.3. Identified and Estimated Homeless Students Perceived by Teachers and Staff
Members
Low–Medium SES District High SES District
MS 1
a
ES 1 ES 2 ES 3
n n n n
Identified (district) 87 85
Identified (school) 8 13 3 1
Teachers 30 20 35 13
Estimated Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Doubled up
b
20 143 26 62 77 219 44 66
Shelter, hotel, or motel 3 33 10 19 27 60 1 1
Street, car, or campground 1 5 2 2 4 7 0 0
Total 24 181 38 83 108 286 45 67
Note. ES = elementary school; MS = middle school.
a
Because this is a middle school and teachers teach in different classes, the minimum number includes
duplications.
b
Refers to students who share housing with relatives or friends due to economic difficulties.

199
Table 4.4: Distribution of Teacher Responses Regarding Awareness of Definition of
Homelessness
Low–Middle SES District High SES District
MS 1 ES 1 ES 2 ES 3
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Homeless 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
Note. ES = elementary school; MS = middle school.

200
Table 4.5. Responses of Teachers and Staff Members Regarding School Experience of Homeless
Students
Low–Middle SES District High SES District
MS 1 ES 1 ES 2 ES 3
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Homeless 30 20 35 13
Bullying
Never 0 (0.0) 2 (10.5) 1 (2.9) 0 (0.0)
Seldom 6 (20.7) 3 (15.8) 12 (34.3) 6 (46.2)
About half of the time 5 (7.2) 5 (26.3) 13 (37.1) 2 (15.4)
Most of the time 4 (13.8) 0 (0.0) 2 (5.7) 0 (0.0)
Always 2 (6.9) 1 (5.3) 0 (0.0) 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 3 (10.3) 2 (10.5) 6 (17.1) 5 (38.5)
About half of the time 2 (6.9) 7 (35.0) 11 (31.4) 4 (30.8)
Most of the time 9 (31.0) 3 (15.8) 9 (25.7) 1 (7.7)
Always 4 (13.8) 1 (5.3) 1 (2.9) 0 (0.0)
Don’t know 11 (37.9) 5 (26.3) 8 (22.9) 3 (23.1)
Social emotional difficulties
Never 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Seldom 1 (3.4) 5 (26.3) 4 (11.4) 2 (15.4)
About half of the time 2 (6.9) 6 (31.6) 8 (22.9) 3 (23.1)
Most of the time 12 (41.4) 5 (26.3) 16 (45.7) 3 (23.1)
Always 7 (24.1) 1 (5.3) 5 (14.3) 2 (15.4)
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 2 (6.9) 8 (42.1) 8 (22.9) 1 (7.7)
About half of the time 6 (20.7) 4 (21.1) 12 (34.3) 4 (30.8)
Most of the time 5 (17.2) 2 (10.5) 5 (14.3) 3 (23.1)
Always 4 (13.8) 0 (0.0) 2 (5.7) 0 (0.0)
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 2 (6.9) 3 (15.8) 4 (11.4) 4 (30.8)
About half of the time 4 (13.8) 7 (36.8) 5 (14.3) 3 (23.1)
Most of the time 10 (34.5) 6 (31.6) 17 (48.6) 3 (23.1)
Always 8 (27.6) 1 (5.3) 7 (20.0) 1 (7.7)
Don’t know 5 (17.2) 2 (10.5) 2 (5.7) 2 (15.4)
Note. ES = elementary school; MS = middle school.

201
Figure 4.1. Organizational Structure of Low–Medium SES School District Related to Homeless
Students

202
Figure 4.2. High SES District Organizational Structure Related to Homeless Students

203
Appendix
Table A1. Design Characteristics
Characteristic Rationale
Exploratory with
explanatory
elements
Investigated school experience of homeless students via multiple
perspectives and focus on services implementation and its effects while
addressing the questions of “How?” and “Why?” to explain implementation
process and outcomes.
Paradigmatic Generated examples extracted from phenomena.
Evaluative Centered on evaluation of service creation and implementation of MVA.
Embedded Several units of analysis in each school, including district-level staff
members, homeless liaison, school staff members, and students.
Multiple case
studies
Investigated conditions under which MVA is implemented; multiple cases
selected to allow in-depth investigation.

204
Table A2. Strategies for Rigor
Criteria Strategy Research Phase
Trustworthiness 1. Multiple data sources (documents, interviews,
observations)
2. Chain of evidence established through
documentation
Data collection
Credibility 1. Engagement in field and prolonged engagement
2. Theory triangulation; several theories used to
interpret data
3. Triangulation among and within data sources
(interviews); matrix of findings and sources for data
triangulation
4. Pattern matching
5. Member checking through district presentation
Data analysis
Transferability 1. Thick description was provided
2. Purposive and explained sample
3. Conceptual integrative framework
Research design
Dependability 1.Code–recode strategies during analysis
2. Observer triangulation
3. Peer examination through advisor and researcher
assistance work
Data collection
Confirmability 1. Practice reflexivity via notes and memos All phases

205
Chapter 5: Integration of Findings, Conclusions, and Implications for Policy, Future
Research, and Practice
The overarching goal of this dissertation was to bridge gaps between two worlds of
knowledge, practice, and policy: the world of homelessness and the world of education and
schools. As such, the three separate studies presented in this dissertation built on one another by
examining the unexplored ecological contexts of homeless students, including the school,
district, and state. In addition, this dissertation outlined the relatively unexplored dimension of
school-based experiences of homeless students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Prior to this dissertation, empirical evidence and theories that centered on the intersection
between homelessness and schools were scarce. Particularly, studies that focused on the school
experience of homeless students, including the multiple subgroups of homeless students, were
limited (Brooks Nelson, 2016).
In terms of age range and school type, this dissertation focused on the school experience
of homeless students across all school ages in its three studies, providing a broad and inclusive
understanding of this intersection. Moreover, multiple layers including the school, district, and
state levels were investigated to provide a comprehensive and epidemiological understanding of
the school experience of homeless students. The combined findings offer a nuanced
understanding of multiple school violence behaviors of homeless students and nonhomeless
students from the same schools, communities, and socioecological community contexts. The first
two studies (Chapters 2 and 3) are also the first studies on outcomes that are generalizable to all
California high schools.
Study 1 (Chapter 2) is one of the very first studies to examine differences among the
multiple subgroups of homeless students such as doubled-up students; students in shelters,
206
hotels, or motels; and students living on the street in the context of school violence. Study 2
(Chapter 3) presented an examination of the association between school climate dimensions and
school violence among homeless and nonhomeless students at the individual and school levels,
providing a nuanced understanding of differences and adding new information about the role of
school climate in relation to school violence. Study 3 provided new and detailed information
about schools nested in districts with different socioeconomic statuses (SES) and how these
contexts affect homeless students, their school experience, and the schools that serve them.
This three-study dissertation used both large-scale quantitative methods along with a
mixed-methods case study. This allowed a generalizable set of findings in conjunction with
nuanced understanding of how districts and schools deal with homeless students. In the first
study, an exploratory approach was used to examine unexplored differences between subgroups
of homeless students and nonhomeless students in terms of discriminatory bullying, school
victimization, and weapon involvement in school. The second study examined the role of school
climate with the same school violence outcomes at the individual and school levels while using
an explanatory approach to examine the association between school climate and these adverse
outcomes among homeless and nonhomeless students. This study also had an exploratory
element, given the school level was never examined before in the context of homeless students
and school victimization. The third study integrated exploratory and explanatory approaches
while focusing on districts and schools embedded in them. This study centered on the districts’
and schools’ SES context and investigated whether differences in SES context affects the role of
the district and schools for homeless students. The transition from the exploratory approach to
the explanatory approach and their integration were developed throughout the multiple stages of
data collection and analysis.
207
Overall Major Findings and Integration with Existing Research
School Violence and Victimization among School-Attending Homeless Youth
The epidemiological results from Study 1 paint a rather alarming picture of school
violence behaviors among homeless students, particularly weapon involvement. This is the first
statewide empirical paper to examine differences between subgroups of homeless students and
nonhomeless students. Therefore, prior to examining the multiple school violence related
findings, attention should be given to the demographic descriptives found in this study.
The examination of the subgroups of this study indicated that at least some of the
homeless youth were accompanied by their family members. Overall, the definition of what
constitutes a homeless youth is not consistent and varies among different federal statutes, offices,
and programs (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2013). Homeless youth are often thought of as
unaccompanied individuals who are living without a relative, also known as “runaway youth” or
“throwaway youth” (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2013; Tierney, Gupton, & Hallett, 2008). Although
the results from the study cannot clearly indicate whether these youth were accompanied or not,
it seems that at least some of them, and especially those who were doubled up, experienced
family homelessness. This is an important aspect to consider for several reasons. First,
accompanied homeless youth who experience homelessness with their families constitute a
hidden population that is rarely discussed in research. Additionally, accompanied homeless
youth might present unique characteristics based on their situation. On one hand, they might
have more access to social support, a higher sense of stability, and a safer environment compared
to unaccompanied youth. On the other hand, they might need to help support their families,
which adds additional stress and increases their risk of experiencing adverse behaviors (Hallett,
208
2011). Future research is needed to explore the unique needs of this subgroup, especially
compared to their unaccompanied peers.
Moreover, the results indicated an intersection between homelessness and gang
membership among school-attending homeless youth. The intersection of homelessness and
gangs has been previously discussed in the literature, demonstrating that homeless youth who are
gang involved are at higher risk than their non-gang-involved peers of multiple adverse
behaviors (Petering, 2016; Petering, Rhoades, Winetrobe, Dent, & Rice, 2017; Yoder, Whitbeck,
& Hoyt, 2003). However, this is the first study to illustrate this intersection among school-
attending homeless youth, and the findings point to the need to further examine this intersection
in the context of schools, especially with relation to violence outcomes. Moreover, previous
literature has shown that homeless youth who are gang involved are at risk of using substances,
taking sexual risks, and experiencing trauma (Harper, Davidson, & Hosek, 2008; Petering,
2016). Hence, future research that focuses on the intersection between homelessness and gangs
in school with regard to unexplored outcomes such as substance use and mental health is needed.
As expected, school-attending homeless youth presented higher rates of each of the
school violence behaviors. Only 23.0% of nonhomeless students reported experiencing
discriminatory bullying in school, compared to 27.3% students living with other families, 29% of
students living with a relative or friend, 41.7% of sheltered homeless students, and 47.3% of
nonsheltered homeless students. These high rates indicate that school-attending homeless youth
experienced more discriminatory bullying because of their race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability. Because homeless students
often have multiple intersecting identities that increase their vulnerability to discriminatory
bullying (such as being a sexual minority), and because this study showed they are at higher risk
209
of experiencing such bullying, future research that focuses on bullying related to specific
intersecting identities should be conducted.
Across all groups of homeless and nonhomeless students, more than 60% of participants
reported behavioral victimization. All homeless subgroups reported higher levels of behavioral
victimization compared to the nonhomeless category (61.1%). Students living with other families
(66.1%), students living with a relative or friend (68.8%), sheltered homeless students (70.7%),
and especially nonsheltered homeless students (77%) reported higher rates of behavioral
victimization. These findings are not surprising because previous literature has indicated that
homeless youth are at higher risk of experiencing victimization and violence across different
social contexts, including experiences of victimization prior to being homeless, street
victimization, and correlations among victimization, substance use, and mental health (Tyler &
Melander, 2015). Prior studies showed that homeless youth experience high rates of
victimization compared to their housed peers (Brown, Bender, Begun, Ferguson, & Thompson,
2015; Edidin, Ganim, Hunter, & Karnik, 2012; Heerde & Hemphill, 2014; Rattelade, Farrell,
Aubry, & Klodawsky, 2014). Additionally, a previous study showed that nonsheltered school-
attending homeless youth experience high rates of school victimization (Moore, Benbenishty,
Astor, & Rice, 2017).
Further research is required to understand the relationship between school victimization
and out-of-school victimization among homeless youth, especially because both types of
violence might require different, or alternatively integrative, interventions.
Weapon involvement was also highly represented in the homeless subgroups. Whereas
10.6% of nonhomeless students reported weapon involvement, 15.3% students living with their
families and 19.1% students living with a friend or a relative reported weapon involvement. For
210
sheltered and nonsheltered homeless students, the percentages were much higher: 37% and
60.3%, respectively. The involvement of homeless youth with weapons is an unexplored
research area in both the youth homelessness literature and school-related research. Because the
findings indicate that school-attending homeless youth are more likely to be involved with
weapons on school grounds, it is important to explore their weapon involvement outside of
school as well. This is especially important because a prior study found that weapon carrying is
significantly associated with both bullying perpetration and victimization (Valdebenito, Ttofi,
Eisner, & Gaffney, 2017). Additionally, a different study found that compared to their housed
peers, homeless youth carry weapons more often, especially vulnerable subgroups in the
homeless youth population that perceive a need to carry weapons for protection (Bender,
Thompson, Ferguson, Yoder, & DePrince, 2015). Therefore, research is needed to examine the
motives of homeless youth regarding weapon carrying, whether for protection, perpetration, or
both.
Findings from this study show a significant relationship between homelessness and
school violence. Additionally, differences in the homeless population indicate a hierarchy among
subgroups in relation to school violence behaviors. Nonsheltered homeless students had higher
rates of school violence, followed by sheltered homeless students. Students living with a friend,
relative, or another family had higher rates of school violence compared to nonhomeless peers.
This order remained the same across all school discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization,
and weapon involvement outcomes. The fact that these differences are consistent across the
various school violence behaviors deserves further attention. Similar differences among
homeless subgroups were documented in previous studies that examined sexual risk taking,
health care use, and school attendance (Brooks Nelson, 2016; Rice et al., 2013).
211
Future research that focuses on differences among the multiple subgroups of students
experiencing homelessness is needed to learn about their varying violence behaviors rates and
risk and protective factors associated with those behaviors.
School Violence and School Climate among Homeless and Nonhomeless Students
Building on findings from the epidemiological Study 1, Study 2 sought to examine the
context of school for homeless students by adding two conceptual and methodological layers,
school climate and the school level. Hence, in Study 2, an individual-level sample and a school-
level sample were used to learn about associations between multiple components of school
climate (safety, positive relationships with adults in school, meaningful participation, and
connectedness) and discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and weapon involvement
in school among subgroups of homeless students and nonhomeless students. Relationships
between school climate and violence outcomes were assessed at the school and individual levels,
while controlling for sociodemographic variables (gender, grade, and race) and background
variables (gang membership and homelessness). Findings by level generated different yet
complementary information. At the student level, multiple components of positive school climate
reduced the likelihood of experiencing discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and
weapon involvement in school among homeless students, especially the school climate
component of safety. At the school level, the presence of homeless students in school was
associated with a higher rate of weapon involvement. However, the results indicated that the
presence of homeless students in school was not associated with the rate of discriminatory
bullying or behavioral victimization. Moreover, positive school climate at school level reduced
the likelihood of all violence behaviors in school.
212
The results of this study are relevant to several bodies of literature, including the school
climate and homeless youth violence literatures. The findings illustrate that schools, and chiefly
school climate, play an important role for all groups of homeless students and nonhomeless
students. This study provided empirical evidence that contributes to literature on risk and
protective factors among homeless and nonhomeless youths (Milburn et al., 2009). Multiple
studies in the literature on homeless youth have focused on protective and risk factors among
homeless youth, and various contexts were found to either increase or decrease the risk of
engaging in adverse behaviors. Adult support, positive relationships with peers, social support,
and high-quality youth–mentor relationships were all associated with reduced engagement in risk
behaviors such as substance use and sexual risk taking (Ferguson & Xie, 2012; Heerde &
Hemphill, 2017; Milburn et al., 2009). Yet too often, schools as locations and the unique role of
school for homeless students have remained outside of the research realm. Adding the school
context to homeless youth research is especially important. Results from the school level in this
study indicate that this approach may yield different information than the individual level, which
could indicate additional avenues for intervention and support of homeless students.
In relation to school climate literature, the findings from Study 2 are supported in
previous research that demonstrated the association between positive school climate and reduced
school victimization and bullying (e.g., Astor & Benbenishty, 2018; Steffgen, Recchia, &
Viechtbauer, 2013; Wang et al., 2014). The findings are also consistent with previous research
that focused on other at-risk populations such as military-connected students (De Pedro, Astor,
Gilreath, Benbenishty, & Berkowitz, 2016). Results from Study 2 show that the school climate
component of safety was found to be especially important with regard to reduced likelihood of
experiencing school violence. This is consistent with prior studies that showed that schools that
213
lack a sense of safety have higher rates of school victimization (De Pedro et al., 2016; Marachi,
Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007).
One surprising and important finding requires further research. In considering the
different dimensions of school climate, surprisingly, positive relationships with adults in school
and meaningful participation had very weak unique contributions to the models regarding the
investigated outcomes. Although previous studies have found similar results regarding
meaningful participation (De Pedro et al., 2016), this is one of the first studies to find a low
association between positive relationships with adults in school and school violence outcomes.
Because this is one of the first studies to examine school climate and school victimization among
homeless students, the findings suggest that while controlling for gang membership and
homelessness, the role of positive relationships with adults in schools was less significant. This
finding challenges previous theoretical and empirically based work on the role of supportive
adult relationships and school victimization (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey,
& Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013) and highlights the fact that for homeless and gang-involved
students, school connectedness and safety are more strongly associated with school violence
behaviors than other school climate components.
This study illustrates the need to further examine school climate in the context of
homeless students and specifically, to understand the importance of different components of
climate, given their differences compared to other populations.
Role of District SES Context for Homeless Students and Their Schools
Study 3 provided novel information regarding the district context for homeless students.
This mixed-methods case study compared two school districts and their four elementary and
middle schools in Southern California. The findings expand our understanding of student
214
homelessness and the school experience of homeless students by incorporating information about
school homelessness in the context of elementary and middle schools, which was lacking in
previous literature. Additionally, it examined the role of the district context in the school
experience of homeless students. Particularly, this study focused on the role of the districts’ and
schools’ SES.
The findings from this study demonstrate that although the districts differed in their SES
context, there were no differences between districts and schools in relation to the major
challenges of identifying homeless students and awareness of homeless students. Moreover,
findings were similar with regard to the school experience of identified students across schools
and districts. This indicates that homeless students went largely unnoticed in both contexts.
The fact that the districts and schools shared these challenges supports existing literature
that suggested that current policies that focus on providing equal opportunities for education to
homeless students are necessary, but not sufficient (Hendricks & Barkley, 2012; Miller, 2011).
Future research that explores districts that are successful in identifying homeless students are
desperately needed to provide information that will assist policy makers and districts in their
mandatory requirement to identify homeless students.
Findings from Study 3 also demonstrate that despite similarities between the districts in
several major challenges, there were evident differences based on their SES context. The
processes that guided decision making and structural organization regarding service delivery
were different between the districts, and those differences were related to SES contextual factors.
The differences between the districts suggest that their needs in addressing the homeless
student population varied based on their context. This is a new and unexplored finding that
requires further investigation and development. Additional qualitative and quantitative studies
215
that examine the role of contextual factors, and primarily the SES context of districts and
schools, are needed and would make important contributions to the education and homelessness
literatures. In particular, studies that compare urban, suburban, and rural districts and multiple
schools across districts are needed to establish the specific role of the context for homeless
students and the schools that serve them.
Moreover, the findings of this study are relevant to prior research that investigated the
implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act (MVA; 1987). Prior studies that focused on the
implementation of the MVA demonstrated that homeless students are underidentified, provided
with inadequate services, and denied access to schools (Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Israel, 2006;
Miller, 2011).
The findings from this study show that the implementation of the MVA is associated with
many contexts including the community, school, and district SES, and is dependent on
individuals at the school and district levels who work with homeless students. Further research
that incorporates these dimensions to examine implementation of the MVA are needed to
advance the policy and its implementation.
Last, Study 3 indicated an unexplored intersection between immigration and
homelessness, because participants across all schools and districts described an intersection of
immigration status and homelessness, specifically in the doubled-up category. The research
literature 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, such as language barriers, fear of
deportation, and migratory labor patterns, which may result in lower service use and subsequent
underrepresentation in homelessness statistics (Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness,
216
2015). Future studies are needed to investigate this intersection, especially in the context of the
already unexplored doubled-up category.
Contribution to Theory
This work was guided by two major theories, ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
and the social development model (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996), and two models, the risk
amplification and abatement model (Milburn et al., 2009) and Astor and Benbenishty’s (2018)
heuristic model. Based on these theories and the findings from the three studies, Figure 5.1
presents an illustration of the multiple contexts in which homeless students are embedded and the
various socialization agents with whom they engage. This conceptual model is based on the
current findings and highlights new information yielded from the studies. It also points to
elements still missing in the research literature, and may serve as a roadmap for future
researchers and those interested in bridging the gaps between the world of homelessness and
schools.
In line with ecological theory and Astor and Benbenishty’s (2018) model, the findings
indicate that the school context matters for homeless students. At the center of this conceptual
model is the homeless student. Homeless students, and especially those who are doubled up and
represent the majority of the population of homeless students, do not exist in a vacuum and have
unique characteristics that should be considered and addressed with regard to risk behaviors.
First, as the findings from all three studies show, homeless students have multiple individual
social contexts, including family, friends, and hosting families. This means that providing
services to homeless students and establishing practices that improve their school experience can
have an impact on additional individuals or groups that homeless students are associated with,
such as their siblings, parents, gang members, and hosting families. This increases even more the
217
role of the school in providing safe environments and interventions to support these students.
Future research that focuses on the role of school for individuals who are associated with
homeless students, and the role of those individuals on schools and districts, are needed. As
Study 2 showed, school characteristics, including the number of homeless students and gang
members, may be related to other school characteristics such as rates of school violence.
Additionally, findings from all three studies show that additional intersections are related
to individual characteristics of homeless students, such as being an immigrant or from an
immigrant family, being a sexual minority, or experiencing disability. These should be especially
considered while aiming to better the lives of homeless students and their families. Researchers
and service providers who work with these unique intersecting groups (such as sexual minority
homeless youth) should consider these areas of investigation and intervention, because research
is still rare with regard to these groups in the school and district contexts.
The school level includes multiple units that are specifically related to homeless students,
such as teachers, school administrators, school homeless liaisons, additional school staff
members, and other students. In addition to all these units having direct contact with homeless
students, these individuals, including homeless students, affect and create the school climate and
levels of school victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2018). From a theoretical standpoint, this
means that to better the lives and school experiences of homeless students, attention should be
given to the dynamics among multiple units in the school while providing a new avenue to
understand the lives of homeless children, youth, and families and develop interventions and
practices at the school level. This is consistent with the social development model and the risk
amplification and abatement model, which posit that engagement with positive or negative
socialization agents has an effect on the risk taking of homeless youth.
218
As the bidirectional arrows show, the multiple units do not only affect but also are
affected by school climate. The findings also indicate that the presence of homeless students in
school may be associated with higher levels of weapon involvement in school, which points to
the fact that interventions should be developed that integrate the individual and school levels.
Future studies that focus on different units, especially in the field of education reform, are
required to establish a better understanding of the school context for homeless students.
Local contextual factors such as housing and homeless services, food pantries, health
services, geographical location, presence of gangs in the community, community SES, and
attitudes toward poverty all have meaning for homeless students and the schools in which they
are embedded. Understanding internal and organizational school characteristics is crucial to
developing the ability of schools to support homeless students, yet without sufficient support
from outside contexts such as the local community and services, schools are limited in their
ability to support homeless students. The gap in research between homelessness in schools and
homelessness in the community creates an artificial separation between two bodies of knowledge
that often investigate the same population. Therefore, not much is known about the relationship
between the school’s internal and external services for homeless students, leaving a gap in the
understanding of the best practices to support them. Future research that informs service
providers in the school setting and the surrounding community is needed to better the lives of
homeless students and their families.
The district context provides an additional layer that deserves consideration from a
conceptual point of view. Although schools play a major role for homeless students in terms of
service delivery and school climate, the districts in which schools are embedded provide a
context in terms of funding, structural organization of service delivery, and attitudes toward
219
homelessness. The district-level staff that is directly accountable for homeless students and
homeless services should be considered in terms of relationships with school service providers
and school staff members. Similar to the local community context of the school, the district is
also embedded in a local context that can limit or increase its ability to support homeless students
depending on the availability of services and the community approach to homelessness. Further
research that investigates the role of the district in decision making and policy development
regarding homelessness at the community level is needed. Similarly, studies that examine the
role of city-level policies and politics in district decision making and services regarding
homeless students are equally needed. This includes examining local attitudes toward
homelessness, mapping local services in relation to the district, investigating the relationship
between district-level personnel and outside services, and exploring the role of districts at the
city level in decision making regarding homelessness in the community.
Additionally, this district context is also an important arena to consider for intervention
and advocacy. School districts play a significant role in every city, and integrating the districts in
the discourse around service provision to homeless children, youth, and families at the city level
has the potential to increase and improve services.
Although similar contextual factors are evident at both the district and school levels,
findings from Study 3 show that schools nested in the same district might not share the same
contextual factors. This indicates the importance of developing a cohesive and agreed-upon
approach between schools and districts alongside supports for homeless students. Although each
layer has valuable impact by itself, the integration of multiple layers provides a more accurate
understanding of the ability to support homeless students.
220
Last, the role of school, district, state, and federal policies is an important factor to
consider. The MVA and Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) are policies that are
implemented in a top-down approach, meaning that they provide a context for all the layers in
the model. Yet as the findings show, implementation varies at the school and district levels based
on multiple factors, such as district and school SES and community attitudes toward
homelessness. Future research that investigates successful practices that support homeless
students at the local school level is needed to identify ways to improve the school experience of
homeless students. These types of practices should be encouraged, documented, and
disseminated across schools and districts, using a bottom-up approach to inform and complement
the top-down approach.
This conceptual model is relevant to homelessness research literature and school and
education literature because it integrates internal and external factors that affect the lives of
homeless students and their families that are not limited to the schools or districts. The model
also indicates multiple points of intervention and manifold domains that require further
investigation and highlights the urgent need to create a body of research that brings together
theorists, researchers, policy makers, and service providers from multiple disciplines to address
the unique intersection of homelessness and schools.
Implications for Future Research, Policy, and Practice
Homeless Students ’ School Experience
Findings from this dissertation illustrate that the school experience of homeless students
is multifaceted and depends on many contextual factors. Because the education literature has
tended to focus on the implementation of the MVA (e.g., Julianelle, 2008; Shea, Zetlin, &
Weinberg, 2010), whereas the homelessness research often has disregarded the school
221
experience of homeless students (e.g., Masten, Fiat, Labella, & Strack, 2015), there is a gap in
the literature regarding the totality of the school experience of homeless students and in federal
and local policies. This dissertation provided initial yet comprehensive insights regarding this
seeming lack in empirical evidence, which has implications for theory, future research, and
policy. First, the findings from the three studies highlight the need to further investigate
additional adverse behaviors such as substance use in school, sexual risk taking in school, mental
health, and other outcomes. Traditionally, these types of outcomes are examined either in the
homelessness youth literature (Edidin et al., 2012) or the education literature (Astor &
Benbenishty, 2018; Hong & Espelage, 2012), but not among homeless students in the school
setting. Learning about the unique experience of homeless students in school may provide
valuable insights and information to consider while developing interventions and policies for
homeless children and youth.
Second, the results indicate that despite the importance of the MVA in advancing the
rights and access of homeless students to school, critical elements are missing from the policy,
including addressing the unique needs of homeless students while they are already engaged in
schools. The findings from this dissertation should be applied to policy and direct practice
development, and further research should examine how the school experience could be
integrated in the MVA. Additionally, the findings from this study point to the fact that homeless
students can benefit from policies that are not directly related to homeless students, but could
have an important impact on them. Local school policies that address school violence and
bullying, substance use, and mental health could go a long way in buffering the risks homeless
students face. For example, in a review of school climate research, Thapa and colleagues (2013)
found that an important dimension in creating a safe school environment is the existence and
222
enforcement of norms and rules in school, especially with regard to school victimization,
delinquent behaviors, and substance use (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005;
Thapa et al., 2013). This means that school, district, and federal policies should be integrated to
improve the school experience of homeless students.
Third, the findings of the dissertation clearly indicate that research on homeless youth
and policies that focus on homeless children and youth should incorporate the school context as
an important dimension for investigation and intervention. Although education research has
tended to focus on academic achievement of homeless students from an equity perspective, a gap
remains with regard to the school experience of homeless students. Experts from the field of
children and youth homelessness who focus on adverse and risk behaviors among homeless
youth could provide valuable information for schools, and vice versa. Moreover, from a service
delivery perspective, schools as a location for intervention and service delivery should be
considered by community service providers, especially because schools serve multiple subgroups
of the homelessness population and may be an important outreach context in which to establish
services.
Implications for Education Reform
In addition to focusing on the population of homeless students from an individual student
perspective, findings from this dissertation underscore the role that the school context and district
context play for homeless students. Considering the education reform literature and related
policies, the findings from this dissertation demonstrate that the school context, including school
climate, organizational structure, SES context, and district context, has an important role in the
school experience of homeless students that goes beyond academic achievement. In the past few
years, education reform initiatives, programs, and related policies have increasingly included
223
elements that focus on school climate and socioemotional learning (SEL; Taylor, Oberle, Durlak,
& Weissberg, 2017). This dissertation provides additional support for this trend and illuminates
its relevance for homeless students.
Moreover, the findings provide preliminary support to the fundamental assumption of
education reform, that education and schools have the power to create essential change for both
individuals and society at large. This comes to fruition in the potential role that schools have in
supporting homeless students and their families, as demonstrated in Studies 2 and 3. Yet as the
findings indicate, additional financial support, clear structural organization for service delivery,
improved positive school climate, and unique attention to homeless students are still desperately
needed. In addition to the role of school for homeless students, the findings from Study 3 point to
the importance of the district in education reform, which supports previous research that focused
on the districts’ role in policy implementation (e.g., Hallet, Skrla, & Low, 2015; Russell,
Meredith, Childs, Stein, & Prine, 2015). Specifically, findings demonstrate how districts provide
the context for policy creation and implementation, attitudes toward homelessness, and funding
distribution.
Since the 1990s, several major trends have emerged in education reform. First, the
passage of No Child Left Behind (2001) has introduced standardized testing as an important
domain in education reform. This domain has remained one of the major chief elements in
education reform. This standards-based education reform was guided by the establishment of
academic standards for the knowledge and skills students should gain at each grade level.
Accountability, including monitoring and improving student outcomes, was a key element of the
policy. The more recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015) maintains standardized
224
testing requirements, yet higher levels of discretion are given to states and districts in
determining the standards students need to meet.
Second, many advocates, researchers, educators, and activists have continually supported
the development of SEL and the creation of a supportive school climate (CASEL, 2017).
Although this trend has been consistent in research, education reform that mandates the inclusion
of SEL indicators or school climate evaluation is still scarce, especially at the federal level. With
the passage of the ESSA came a growing expectation that states would use measures to evaluate
students’ SEL to determine whether their schools are successful. Yet most states have not
included SEL measurements in their plans, indicating that a larger shift in understanding of the
role of schools is needed.
For homeless students, having a safe and supportive environment has two main benefits.
First, it supports their success in school and increases their likelihood of higher achievement and
graduation, and as a result, improves their life trajectories. This is supported by previous research
that found that positive climate mitigates the negative contribution of weak SES background on
academic achievement (Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). Second, SEL and
positive climate have a meaning on their own for homeless students, regardless of academic
achievement, because schools may be one of the only consistent, safe, and positive contexts for
students and families dealing with homelessness and housing instability.
Regarding education reform in the context of the school for homeless students, both the
ESSA and LCAP should be considered. At a federal policy level, according to the ESSA, states
are encouraged to choose a nonacademic indicator to evaluate student success in school. This is a
major shift from the previous No Child Left Behind (2001) policy that did not include an
accountability aspect with regard to nonacademic indicators. This requirement emphasizes the
225
importance of students’ socioemotional development. Specifically, in California, the state’s
board of education approved state and local components of a new accountability system to
evaluate schools and districts (California Department of Education, 2016). The state and local
indicators now include SEL indicators, among them chronic absenteeism, suspensions, and
school climate. This is especially relevant to homeless students, because SEL programs were
found to be extremely effective in decreasing conduct problems and addressing mental and
behavioral health issues (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Taylor et
al., 2017).
Additionally, the attention to accountability and SEL opens new opportunities for the
advancement of policies and expansion of funding at the local, state, and national levels to
address homeless students’ needs in a holistic manner that focuses on not only their access to
school, but also their opportunity for equal education. Learning about homeless students’
behaviors and needs while addressing their school experience could provide new opportunities
for funding while responding to the multiple issues that present barriers to education.
In addition to the federal policy level, important trends are occurring at the state level. In
2013, California launched its system of school financing with a new local control funding
formula. This formula requires that districts create an LCAP, but gives them more discretion than
ever before. The formula “grants more decision-making powers to school districts, and also gives
additional state funds to districts based on the number of low-income students, English learners,
foster children and homeless youth they serve” (EdSource, 2017, para. 1). This has immense
importance for homeless students in California, because it creates an incentive for districts to
identify multiple vulnerable populations in their schools (including homeless students) to receive
funding to support them. This was one of the reasons the districts in Study 3 aimed to improve
226
their homelessness services, which indicates that the incentive played a role in districts’ decision
making. However, it is valuable to consider community involvement in the LCAP, because it
needs to be approved by multiple stakeholders including the external school community. As
findings from Study 3 show, the community may also reduce investment in homeless students to
support other priorities. This highlights the importance of multiple and integrated policies from
the federal to the school levels that focus specifically on homeless students.
School Climate at the School and Student Levels: Examining Nestedness through
Contradiction
This dissertation explored several contexts of homeless students, particularly the
nestedness of homeless students in schools, districts, and state. Although homeless students were
at the center of this study, and the nested layers were examined in the context of these students,
findings from Study 2 demonstrate the importance of placing the schools at the center of
investigation. According to Astor and Benbenishty’s (2018) heuristic model, schools are at the
center and external and internal factors are examined in the context of the school, rather than in
terms of their effect on the individual student.
Findings from Study 2 demonstrate the importance of contrasting findings from the
individual and school levels. Although from a statistical point of view, this type of analysis does
not capture the student nested in the school, from a conceptual perspective, it provides important
information from both levels. This information should be understood while bearing in mind that
the information from the student level is related to the information from the school level, and
vice versa. Each level provided different findings, highlighting the fact that improving school
climate at the school level could reduce discriminatory bullying, behavioral victimization, and
weapon involvement, and as a result, improve the school experience of homeless students.
227
Hence, not disregarding the value of providing targeted services to homeless students and their
families or programs that focus on SEL or school violence, holistic approaches and interventions
that focus on improving school climate for the whole school are extremely important.
The findings from Studies 2 and 3 also highlight the unique external and internal contexts
of schools. For example, schools that have higher rates of gang members and homeless students
have higher rates of school violence. Therefore, when considering practices to improve school
climate at the school level, these unique characteristics must be considered. In addition, although
there is an ongoing discourse in the school climate literature as to the definition of school
climate, research remains scarce with regard to ways to improve school climate. A school with
high rates of gang and homeless students may develop unique and tailored practices to improve
school climate that may not be suitable to schools with different characteristics. Therefore,
interventions that are developed from a bottom-top perspective are needed to further understand
the conditions for promoting positive school climate and create healthy environments for both
homeless and nonhomeless students.
Moreover, despite the unique information provided in this dissertation by contrasting
school and student levels, future quantitative studies that investigate the nestedness of homeless
students in schools and schools in communities are needed, specifically studies that use
hierarchical linear modeling to identify and examine how nested contexts influence
homelessness, school violence, and other school climate factors.
Doubled Up: A Hidden and Unexplored Subgroup of Homeless Children and Youth
Research is extremely limited with regard to the doubled-up category of homeless
students. Several qualitative studies have investigated the unique situation of doubled-up
students, mainly focusing on youths, and demonstrated that they experience unique challenges
228
and have distinctive contexts that should be further investigated (Hallett, 2012). Additionally,
research has found that districts are underidentifying homeless students, especially doubled-up
students (Hallett et al., 2015). This dissertation’s findings are consistent with this previous
research, yet they add to the body of literature regarding the unique school experience of
doubled-up students compared to sheltered and nonsheltered homeless students and nonhomeless
students. The findings show differences within the homeless population; that is, among sheltered,
doubled-up, and nonsheltered school-attending homeless students. Although the findings were
more severe for nonsheltered and sheltered homeless students, doubled-up students also
presented higher rates of school violence compared to nonhomeless students. This is especially
important because doubled-up students might go unnoticed, which increases the urgency of
developing identification mechanisms for homeless students, including doubled-up students.
Programs that target doubled-up students are necessary while focusing on prevention and
intervention for bullying, school victimization, and weapon involvement.
Additionally, the little research that has captured doubled-up students largely overlooked
doubled-up students at the elementary and middle school levels and accompanied by their
families but living with other relatives or friends. Essentially, this means that schools and
districts are widely overlooking families that experience homelessness in doubled-up situations.
The fact that the majority of students experiencing homelessness are doubled up and that the
majority of homeless students across the nation are in elementary schools point to an intersection
between family homelessness and doubled-up situations. Schools have the potential to provide
services to families and serve as a central point of intervention for these families, based on the
schools’ and districts’ relationship with community resources and services. Hence, the findings
highlight the necessity of building a network of service providers that have an ongoing
229
relationship with school sites, enabling families to learn about and access these services.
Additionally, future research should examine the doubled-up category in the context of
additional outcomes such as substance use, mental health, risky sexual behaviors, and academic
achievement, while comparing the multiple subgroups of homeless students and students who are
accompanied versus unaccompanied in doubled-up situations.
Findings from Study 3 show that although the MVA specifically details the doubled-up
category, a gap in services remains and the majority of doubled-up students in the districts
remains unidentified. This is consistent with previous reports and literature, and clearly
highlights the urgency of creating mandatory identification mechanisms including surveys,
detailed identification forms, teacher reports, and multiple points of assessment. This gap also
illustrates the need to shift the thinking about homelessness from literal homelessness to an
overarching perspective that capture multiple types of homelessness. To achieve this conceptual
shift, training at the school and district levels is required while targeting multiple personnel
members at both levels, because the findings indicate that a lack of awareness of the MVA
definition exists across all staff members, even those specifically responsible for providing
services to homeless students.
Homelessness as a Refugee Crisis
“Homelessness: America’s Refugee Crisis,” an op-ed in the Huffington Post by Joel
Roberts (2015), CEO of PATH and publisher of PoveryInsights.org, invited readers to examine
the U.S. homelessness challenge by viewing people who experience homelessness as refugees in
their own country. Building and expanding on this notion, this dissertation allowed the
exploration of two important and related elements. First, it examined housing instability and
homelessness as a form of refuge and asylum seeking. The comparison between refugees and
230
people who experience homelessness may yield important information for intervention and
future research, specifically in relation to the school context. Second, it considered the
intersection among homelessness, refugees, immigrants, and undocumented status as an
important area to consider in the context of homeless children, youth, and families.
In considering the comparison between homelessness and situations of refuge, it is
important to examine the international perspective on U.S. homelessness. The homelessness
challenge in the United States Has received international attention from the United Nations.
Recently, Philip Alston was appointed by the United Nations human rights council as “the
special rapporteur on extreme poverty to investigate the plight of the most vulnerable people in
the economic doldrums of the richest nation in the world” (Holland, 2017, para. 5). In a Los
Angeles Times article from December 2017 that followed his tour in the Los Angeles Skid Row
area, the reporter described Alston’s impressions:
Alston said that because the United States — alone among big industrial nations — has
consistently rejected access to housing and sanitation as essential human rights, he is
probing whether economic disparities prevent poor people from exercising their full
political and civil rights. (Holland, 2017, para. 7)
Although it is not clear whether the international community has actual power to
influence internal U.S. policies regarding homelessness, it is important to consider the role of
international policies, especially regarding the discourse on human rights, for homeless
individuals, children, youth, and families. Because international policies are often missing from
the conversation about homelessness in the United States, the comparison between homelessness
and other situations of refuge may yield valuable information in terms of policy development,
service provision, and future research, especially in the context of schools.
231
Specifically, the concept of schools as sanctuaries should be considered by and integrated
in the school homelessness literature. From an international perspective, this concept refers to
schools that are nested in external sources of threat, as in countries experiencing conflict,
wherein rebels, armed forces, and repressive regimes target schools, universities, students, and
teachers. The role of schools based on this concept is rooted in the rights for life and education,
and making schools havens for students is the main goal (Education International, 2009). In
considering findings from this dissertation, it should be noted that homeless students were more
likely than nonhomeless students to experience different types of violence in school. This means
that for them, the schools are not necessarily a haven. Additionally, this dissertation revealed
alarming findings about the intersection between homelessness and gangs, which may also affect
exposure to violence among school-attending homeless youth. For many homeless students and
their families, their lived experiences are similar to those in conflict zones. Therefore, student
homelessness researchers and policy makers should draw from the international literature that
focuses on schools and sanctuaries and examine international policies to enhance school safety,
especially in the local context.
In addition, as discussed previously in this chapter, one of the unique findings of this
dissertation is the intersection between homelessness and immigration, especially with regard to
the doubled-up category. Research about the intersection between homelessness and immigration
among children and youth in the United States is rare. Some of the respondents from Study 3
described an intersection not only between immigration and homelessness, but also between
undocumented status and homelessness. Schools are uniquely positioned to be a haven for
students and their families, especially those in situations of refuge. Hence, schools and districts
232
should be aware of the unique needs of immigrant and undocumented homeless students and
create services to address those issues in a culturally sensitive manner.
Future research should investigate unique practices and services that will assist
undocumented students who experience homelessness. Additionally, existing information about
funding resources and financial aid should be available to the school community, including
families and students. This will also help policy makers, researchers, and advocates learn about
and understand ways that would make funding available for undocumented students, improve
their education trajectory, and help them transition to higher education.
Homeless children, youth, and families and others in situations of refuge face multiple
challenges, presenting a major social challenge that deserves attention in the arenas of policy,
intervention, and future research.

–You only leave home when home won ’t let you stay.
(from “Home,” a refugee poem by British–Somali poet Warsan Shire)

233
References
Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving
contexts: Culture, organization, and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family,
school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bender, K., Thompson, S., Ferguson, K., Yoder, J., & DePrince, A. (2015). Risk detection and
self ‐protection among homeless youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 352–
365. doi:10.1111/jora.12123
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87, 425–469.
doi:10.3102/0034654316669821
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brooks Nelson, E. D. (2016). Examining healthcare utilization patterns, school attendance,
behavior, and academic performance among school-aged children identified as homeless
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI
No. 1854845511)
Brown, S. M., Begun, S., Bender, K., Ferguson, K. M., & Thompson, S. J. (2015). An
exploratory factor analysis of coping styles and relationship to depression among a
sample of homeless youth. Community Mental Health Journal, 51, 818–827.
doi:10.1007/s10597-015-9870-8
234
California Department of Education. (2016). State board of education approves new
groundbreaking school accountability system. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr16/yr16rel59.asp
CASEL. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.casel.org/
Catalano R. F., & Hawkins J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial
behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–
197). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
De Pedro, K. T., Astor, R. A., Gilreath, T., Benbenishty, R., & Berkowitz, R. (2016). Examining
the relationship between school climate and peer victimization among students in
military-connected public schools. Violence and Victims, 31, 751–767. doi:10.1891/0886-
6708.VV-D-15-00009
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta ‐analysis of school ‐
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01564.x
Edidin, J. P., Ganim, Z., Hunter, S. J., & Karnik, N. S. (2012). The mental and physical health of
homeless youth: A literature review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43, 354–
375. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0270-1
EdSource. (2017). Local control funding formula. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/topic/lcff
Education International. (2009). Schools shall be safe sanctuaries. Retrieved from
http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/2009_booklet_Schools-As-Safe-
Sanctuaries_en.pdf
235
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub L. No. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. ch. 28 § 1001 et seq. 20 U.S.C. ch.
70 (2015)
Ferguson, K. M., & Xie, B. (2012). Adult support and substance use among homeless youths
who attend high school. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41, 427–445. doi:10.1007/s10566-
012-9175-9
Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2013). Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics and programs.
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9759/9d3982b1af257ad5a9a9668b71d636faca4e.pdf
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School
climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency
prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.
doi:10.1177/0022427804271931
Hallett, R. E. (2011). Educational experiences of hidden homeless teenagers: Living doubled-up.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hallett, R. E., Skrla, L., & Low, J. (2015). That is not what homeless is: A school district’s
journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and economically displaced children and
youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 671–692.
doi:10.1080/09518398.2015.1017859
Harper, G. W., Davidson, J., & Hosek, S. G. (2008). Influence of gang membership on negative
affect, substance use, and antisocial behavior among homeless African American male
youth. American Journal of Men ’s Health, 2, 229–243. doi:10.1177/1557988307312555
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2014). A systematic review of associations between
perpetration of physically violent behaviors and property offenses, victimization and use
236
of substances among homeless youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 265–277.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.020
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2017). The role of risk and protective factors in the
modification of risk for sexual victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and survival sex
among homeless youth: A meta ‐analysis. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 14, 150–174. doi:10.1002/jip.1473
Hendricks, G., & Barkley, W. (2012). Necessary, but not sufficient: The McKinney–Vento Act
and academic achievement in North Carolina. Children & Schools, 34, 179–185.
doi:10.1093/cs/cds007
Holland, G. (2017, December 11). U.N. monitor on extreme poverty tours skid row in L.A. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-un-skid-
row-20171211-story.html
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311–322.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness. (2015). Definitions, demographics, and trends
in student and family homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Trends-in-Student-and-Family-Homelessness.pdf
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H., & Israel, N. (2006). Services to homeless students and families:
The McKinney-Vento Act and its implications for school social work practice. Children
& Schools, 28, 37–44. doi:10.1093/cs/28.1.37
Julianelle, P. (2008). Using what we know: Supporting the education of unaccompanied
homeless youth. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7, 4–51.
237
Marachi, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2007). Effects of student participation and teacher
support on victimization in Israeli schools: An examination of gender, culture, and school
type. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 225–240. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9136-4
Masten, A. S., Fiat, A. E., Labella, M. H., & Strack, R. A. (2015). Educating homeless and
highly mobile students: Implications of research on risk and resilience. School
Psychology Review, 44, 315–330. doi:10.17105/spr-15-0068.1
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 100-77, 101 Stat. 482, 42 U.S.C. §
11301 et seq. (1987).
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., …
Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting homelessness over two years: The risk
amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762–785.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00610.x
Miller, P. M. (2011). An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the
homeless education situation. Educational Policy, 25, 424–450.
doi:10.1177/0895904809351692
Moore, H., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Rice, E. (2017). The positive role of school climate
on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending
homeless youth. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518
Petering, R. (2016). Sexual risk, substance use, mental health, and trauma experiences of gang-
involved homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 73–81.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.009
238
Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Dent, D., & Rice, E. (2017). Violence, trauma, mental
health, and substance use among homeless youth Juggalos. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 48, 642–650. doi:10.1007/s10578-016-0689-5
Rattelade, S., Farrell, S., Aubry, T., & Klodawsky, F. (2014). The relationship between
victimization and mental health functioning in homeless youth and adults. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1606–1622. doi:10.1177/0886260513511529
Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Fulginiti, A., Astor, R., … Kordic,
T. (2013). Homelessness experiences, sexual orientation, and sexual risk taking among
high school students in Los Angeles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 773–778.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.011
Roberts, J. J. (2015, September 29). Homelessness: America’s refugee crisis. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-john-roberts/homelessness-
americas-ref_b_8215238.html
Russell, J. L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M. K., & Prine, D. W. (2015). Designing inter-
organizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state race to the
top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 92–112.
doi:10.3102/0162373714527341
Shea, N. M., Zetlin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2010). Improving school stability: An
exploratory study of the work of the AB 490 liaisons in California. Children and Youth
Services Review, 32, 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.013
Steffgen, G., Recchia, S., & Viechtbauer, W. (2013). The link between school climate and
violence in school: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 300–
309. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.12.001
239
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth
development through school ‐based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta ‐
analysis of follow ‐up effects. Child Development, 88, 1156–1171.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12864
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
doi:10.3102/0034654313483907
Tierney, W. G., Gupton, J. T., & Hallett, R. E. (2008). Transitions to adulthood for homeless
adolescents: Education and public policy. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis.
Tyler, K. A., & Melander, L. A. (2015). Child abuse, street victimization, and substance use
among homeless young adults. Youth & Society, 47, 502–519.
doi:10.1177/0044118X12471354
Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M. M., Eisner, M., & Gaffney, H. (2017). Weapon carrying in and out of
school among pure bullies, pure victims and bully-victims: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 33, 62–77. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.004
Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D., … Hymel,
S. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: Results from a
multi-informant study. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 360–377.
doi:10.1037/spq0000084
240
Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth. Youth & Society, 34, 441–467.
doi:10.1177/0044118X03034004003

241
Figure 5.1. Conceptual Model of Homeless Students in Multiple Contexts

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Approximately 2.5 million children and youth experience homelessness in the United States. A substantial proportion of this population is engaged in the educational system and attends school, at least sporadically

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School staff perceptions of school climate: a mixed-methods multistudy examination of staff school climate at the state, regional, and school levels

PDF

Social network engagement and HIV risk among homeless former foster youth

PDF

Homeless youth: Reaching the Hard-To-Reach

PDF

The algorithm of Black homelessness: a classification tree analysis

PDF

Social network norms and HIV risk behaviors among homeless youth in Los Angeles, California

PDF

Youth homelessness and gang involvement: ties, trajectories, and timelines

PDF

Increasing access to mental health counseling for homeless youth: Peer2Peer Counseling Supports

PDF

Enhancing homeless education and faculty engagement following the launch of the Grand Challenge to End Homelessness: an evaluation study

PDF

A mixed-methods examination of transgender and gender nonbinary students’schooling experiences: implications for developing affirmative schools

PDF

We are our neighbors' keeper: an innovative field kit of outreach and assessment tools to help end homelessness

PDF

WISER women’s program: well-being innovation with support and education for resilience—a homelessness prevention intervention

PDF

Couch-surfing among youth experiencing homelessness: an examination of HIV risk

PDF

Unto the least of these homeless ministry: ending homelessness within the co-occurring population

PDF

Ending homelessness: evolution of the Qad Prep Academy

PDF

Addison’s Neighbor: permanent supportive housing for parenting youth transitioning out of foster care

PDF

Ensuring healthy development for all youth: homelessness is trauma connecting with the invisible families: fostering the parent-child bond

PDF

Youth homelessness policy change

PDF

The art of connection: youth stories about life and meaning. Voices of Promise: using social practice art for youth connection

PDF

Tobacco use change among formerly homeless supportive housing residents: socioecological barriers and facilitators to cessation

PDF

SCALE UP: an integrated wellness framework for schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Hadass (author)

Core Title An ecological mixed-methods analysis of homeless students’ school experience at the state, district, and school levels

School School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 04/23/2018

Defense Date 01/29/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag family homelessness,homeless youth,immigration,OAI-PMH Harvest,school climate,school reform,school violence,weapon involvement

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Astor, Ron Avi (committee chair), Marsh, Julie (committee member), Wenzel, Suzanne (committee member)

Creator Email hadassmo@usc.edu,hadassmoore@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-493804

Unique identifier UC11267184

Identifier etd-MooreHadas-6263.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-493804 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MooreHadas-6263.pdf

Dmrecord 493804

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Moore, Hadass

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA