The Role of Child Protective Services and Emergency/Transitional Housing in Child School Engagement

• In Event: Students Experiencing Homelessness: Key Findings for Practice and Policy Decision Making

Abstract

Minnesota has among the worst student achievement gaps in the United States across race, income, and housing status.1 Child protective service (CPS) involvement has also been related to maladjustment at school.2, 3 Developmental cascades theory4 suggests that exposure to one risk factor can amplify risk for others. Indeed, the experience of family emergency and transitional housing (ETH) increases the likelihood of other adverse events, including child CPS involvement.5, 6, 7 Further, the experience of multiple risk factors may exponentially elevate risks for reduced school attendance and increased school mobility.8 Children of color disproportionally experience both ETH and CPS involvement. Understanding linkages of children’s engagement with social systems and school adjustment would inform the efforts of policy makers about funding strategies and policies to help children most at risk. This study aimed to evaluate whether experiences of ETH and CPS are related to lower attendance and higher school mobility, controlling carefully for other confounds.

Three administrative data sources were integrated (Department of Education, Department of Human Services, and Homeless Management Information system) through Minnesota Linking Information for Kids (Minn-LInK), which was designed for secure multisystem data integration and analysis. We identified 3,278 4 to 8-year-old children who used ETH in the Twin Cities area during the 2014 or 2015 academic year. Using propensity-score matching, we identified a comparison group of 2,613 children attending the same school who did not use ETH, matching children on a variety of factors (Table 3.1). Using weighted logistic regression, to predict children’s school mobility and attendance, we found that CPS involvement and ETH were related to reduced school attendance in the same year (Figure 3.1). Children who experienced only ETH attended 3% fewer days of school on average compared to the control group (β=-0.23, SE=0.04, z =-5.19, p<.001). Children who were involved only CPS attended 5% fewer days of school on average compared to the control group (β=-0.37, SE=0.07, z =-5.19, p<.001). Children who experienced both attended 6% fewer days on average compared to the control group (β= -0.41, SE=0.05, z=-7.91, p<.001). Results also suggested that ETH and CPS are risk factors for increased school mobility. Children who experienced only ETH (OR=1.3, SE=0.08, z=3.93, p<.001) or only CPS (OR=1.3, SE=0.16, z=2.36, p<.05) were 1.3 times more likely to move schools in a year compared to the control group. Children who experience both were 1.5 times more likely to move schools in a year (OR=1.5, SE=0.13, z=4.44, p<.001).

School stability and attendance may play key roles in assuring equitable access to education and opportunity for all children.9, 10 Despite policies targeting attendance and school stability for children experiencing CPS and ETH, our findings suggest that disparities still persist. Increasing family housing stability may be a key mechanism to reduce CPS involvement11 and school mobility as well as increase school attendance.12, 13 Further, it could be beneficial to focus greater attention on cross system collaboration to ensure child educational stability and also access to all the services families need to help them thrive.

Authors

• Alyssa Palmer, University of Minnesota

• Ann S. Masten, Institute of Child Development