Dr. Laura Tanner-McBrien
Coordinator
Department of Prevention and Intervention
Fresno Unified School District
Fresno, California




Participants will gain an understanding of how
data can be gathered for homeless education
and other district programs.
Participants will understand the importance of
a data-driven program for students in
achieving academic success.
Participants will understand the financial
benefit of having a strong data component.
Participants will gather information to assist
them in their own program implementation.





For Identification
For Delivering Services
For Monitoring Academic and Behavioral
Success
To Track Student Success
To Report Out the Success of a Program
Grants
 District Funds
 District Support
 Community Donations or
Support

Codes in ATLAS
Project ACCESS codes can be found under the Student
Services tab. Four options for services qualify under Project
ACCESS. The codes are entered by Project ACCESS Staff.




Project ACCESS – Homeless
Project ACCESS – Neglected and Delinquent
Project ACCESS – Foster Youth – Out of County Placement
Project ACCESS – Foster Youth – Fresno County Placement
A weekly update from the Department of Children and
Family Services automatically changes the foster codes. The
homeless codes are updated as parents or schools inform
Project ACCESS staff of any changes.
Project ACCESS – Homeless Codes
A AWAITING FOSTER CARE
D LIVING IN A DOUBLED-UP SITUATION
F FORMERLY HOMELESS – Do Not Qualify for Services
M LIVING IN A MOTEL
O OTHER, HOMELESS ACCORDING TO HSS
R RUNAWAY, POSSIBLY STAYED AT THE
SANCTUARY
S LIVING IN A SHELTER
T TRANSIENT (many moves)
U UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH (Caregiver Affidavits)
Project ACCESS – Foster Care Codes
Foster Family Agency
Relative Home
Guardian Home
Tribe Specified Home
Foster Family Home
Foster Family Agency Certified Home
Small Family Home
County Shelter/Receiving Home
Group Home
Court Specified Home
11
21
22
23
31
32
41
51
52
53





History or Pattern of Services
Gather Information About a Family
Track Services Provided to a Family
Evaluate Services Provided to
Families
For Program Evaluation




MARS Data Base
Communicates With Student Information
System
Two Data Bases; One for Homeless, and One
for Foster Youth
Contact Information:
David K. Meyers
 MARS Group
 dmeyers@mars-group.com
 559-261-2220

Add new
record
Refresh
Service
Eligibile
Project
ACCESS Homeless
False
Participation Begins
False
07/01/10
Project
ACCESS Homeless
True
True
08/25/10
Student
Attendance
Review
Board
False
False
07/01/09
Expires
08/25/10
07/12/09
Code
Modified By
Modified
Date
D
Laura
TannerMcbrien
8/25/2010
4:01:38 PM
Edit
U
Laura
TannerMcbrien
8/25/2010
4:01:51 PM
Edit
9/2/2010
1:24:36 PM
Edit
1
Data Fields
 ID
 Last Name
 First Name
 School
 Grade
 Gender
 Ethnic
 DOB
 Speced
 Migrant
 Gate
 Lang
 ELD
 AVID
Meanings
Identification Number
Last Name
First Name
School Number
Grade Level
Male or Female
Ethnicity
Date of Birth
Special Education Code 61, 66, 91
Migrant Program
Gate Code
Home Language Spoken
English Language Development Level
Advancement Via Individual Determination
Program Fields
 Program
 Beginning Date
 Level of Service
 Ending Date
Meaning
Program Title
Date Began Program
Active or Not
Date Services Ended
Academic Data
 AGPA
 Addrcnt
 Enrcnt
 Credearn
 Pctattn
 CSTeps
 CSTess
 CSTmps
 CSTmss
 CAHSEE M
 CAHSEE LA
Meaning
Academic Grade Point Average
Number of addresses in a school year
Number of enrollments in a school year
Number of credits earned in Semester
Percent Attendance
CST English Proficiency Score
CST English Standard Score
CST Math Proficiency Score
CST Math Standard Score
Math CAHSEE Score
Language Arts CAHSEE score
Behavioral Data
 Behavior
 Supensions
 Expulsions
Meaning
Behavior log data
Number of suspensions
Number of expulsions





Data Share
Graphs and Charts
Formal Evaluations
Special Projects
Dissertation
Project ACCESS Homeless Youth CST Scores
Nine Year Comparison
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
t
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
Language Arts
15.00%
Math
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Language Arts
7.20%
10.00%
10.30%
13.60%
14.10%
16.50%
19.50%
23.60%
24.70%
Math
6.30%
9.40%
11.60%
12.50%
16.10%
18.30%
22.10%
28.40%
29.60%
FUSD - Project ACCESS Foster Youth CST Scores
Four Year Comparison
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
t
P
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
Language Arts
Math
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
Language Arts
9.20%
14.60%
22.90%
23.50%
Math
15.80%
11.70%
22.20%
23.60%
FUSD - Project ACCESS
Homeless-Percent Attendance
2009-2010
N = 2,194
92.00%
91.40%
91.00%
90.00%
88.70%
89.00%
88.00%
87.00%
86.20%
86.00%
85.00%
84.00%
83.00%
Elementary
Middle School
High School
FUSD - Project ACCESS
Foster Youth - Percent Attendance 2009-2010
N = 778
95.00%
94.10%
94.00%
93.00%
92.40%
92.00%
91.00%
90.40%
90.00%
89.00%
88.00%
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Suspensions
24% of Foster Youth had at least one suspension
 184 Foster Youth
 N = 778




20% of Homeless Youth had at least one suspension
433 Homeless Youth
N = 2,194
Project ACCESS - Homeless
Graduation 2009 - 2010
1
Adult Ed./GED
17
23
2 3
Summer Drop
Graduate
6
Certificate of Completion
72
Graduate/Special Ed.
Exemption
Certificate of Attendance
Pre-Registered 10-11
Project ACCESS - Foster Youth
Graduation 2009 - 2010
1
2
GED
8
0
1
11
3
Summer Drop
Graduate
38
Certificate of
Completion
Graduate/Special Ed.
Exemption
Certificate of
Attendance
Survey Results for Tutorial
80% responded they attended for credit retrieval
 50% responded they attended for homework
 50% rated the tutorial the top score of “10”; all rated
the tutorial as a “5” or better
 65% of the youth indicated they had a great chance
of graduating high school due to the help given.
 40% rated the tutoring as a way they earned higher
grades and more credits
 40% responded that they would feel comfortable
going to their tutorial teacher with a question or
problem

Impact of School Mobility on Academic
Achievement for Homeless, Foster, and
Housed Students
Dissertation, 2009
CSU Fresno
UC Davis
To explore the ramifications
of school mobility on
academic achievement for
homeless and foster youth




7th – 12th Grade Homeless Students
7th – 12th Grade Foster Youth
7th – 12th Grade Non-Mobile or Housed
Comparison Group
6th Grade Students were included in the 20062007 data for comparison with 7th Grade 20072008 data
Dependent Variables
 GPAs
 Math CST Scores
 LA CST Scores
 % Attendance
 Credits Earned
 Suspensions
Independent Variables
 School Moves
 Address Moves
Specifically, the following research questions
were addressed:
1. Are there differences in California Standards
Test scores between homeless, foster youth, and
non-mobile students?
2. Are attendance rates, grade point averages,
credits earned, and suspensions different for
homeless and foster youth than for housed
youth?
3. Does the number of schools a student attends
correlate with their grade point average?
4. Do student behaviors (ie. suspensions) correlate
with school mobility?
5. Is there a relationship between academic
variables and mobility variables?
Descriptive Statistics
Means, SD
Series of 11 Multivariate One-Way ANOVAs
ELA and Math CST scores by grade and year
Series of four 3 x 2 Way Repeated Measures
ANOVAs
Academic variables by group and year
Correlation Coefficients
Canonical Correlation
Academics with mobility
Research Question 1: Are there differences in California
Standards Test scores between homeless, foster youth,
and non-mobile or housed students?
11 Multivariate One-Way ANOVAs
 Homeless and foster youth were more similar than
different
 Scores for homeless and foster youth were
statistically different from housed students
 CST scores in 9th – 11th grades were inconsistent
Research Question 2: . Are attendance rates, grade point
averages, credits earned, and suspensions different for
homeless and foster youth than for housed youth?
Four 3 x 2 Repeated Measures ANOVAs
 Homeless and foster youth were more similar than
different
 Scores for homeless and foster youth were
statistically different from housed students
Figure 1. Plot of academic GPA by year for housing status
Figure 2. Plot of percent attendance by year for housing status
Figure 3. Plot of number of suspensions by year for housing status
Figure 4. Plot of credits earned by year for housing status
Research Question 3: Does the number of schools
a student attends correlate with their grade
point average?
Research Question 4: Do student behaviors (ie.
suspensions) correlate with school mobility?
Correlation Coefficients
 Found statistically significant correlations
between mobility variables and academic
variables
Research Question 5: Is there a relationship
between academic variables and mobility
variables?
Canonical Correlation
 Housing and School moves accounted for 21%
of the variance between academic variables in
2006-2007
and 20% of the variance between academic
variables in 2007-2008

Reasons for School Moves are Not Known

Pre-mobility Issues are not Considered

Two Years of Data

Missing Data

Qualitative Study Component




Interviews with youth
Housing Situation Comparison
Foster Care Placement Comparison
Transportation Services as a Factor
Why Data?
Laura Tanner-McBrien, Ed.D.
1350 M. St., Building B
Fresno, CA 92721
Phone: 559-457-3359
Fax: 559-457-3372
laura.mcbrien@fresnounified.org