During a recent panel discussion, education and policy experts gathered to reflect on Building Changes’ recently released report, Students Experiencing Homelessness in Washington’s K–12 Public Schools: 2016–2023 Trends, Characteristics, and Academic Outcomes. The report reveals persistent and painful disparities in academic outcomes for students experiencing homelessness across Washington state. The conversation focused on a critical question: How can we use this data to create more meaningful, preventative solutions?
The Limits of Current Data Collection
Dr. Forrest Moore, Policy Fellow at Chapin Hall, opened with a critical look at the Point-in-Time (PIT) counts, a common tool used to measure homelessness. These counts are conducted once a year, offering only a snapshot that often underrepresents the true scale of the problem. He emphasized that even with improved counts, they only tell part of the story: “Any number that’s put out in response to homelessness is a fraction of the truth.”
The panel discussed how the method and frequency of data collection can skew results—which can lead to policy solutions that fail to address underlying problems. Panelists emphasized that the real focus should be on building smarter, more integrated data systems—and using that data to act.
Despite advances in technology—especially in tech hubs like Washington—data systems in the public sector lag behind, often lacking the sophistication and integration seen in retail and commercial industries. Dr. Moore pointed out the irony: “I could go to Target and they’ll know more about me tomorrow than I know about myself, but in public systems where people need real support, we’re flying blind.”
Identification as a First Step, Not a Flaw
Senior Research Associate Betsy Naymon noted that Washington recently reported its highest number of students experiencing homelessness—over 40,000. While alarming, she argued this is not just a sign of worsening conditions but also of better identification, due to recent funding from the American Rescue Plan. Increased training and resources have allowed schools to identify and support more students—a crucial first step in stabilizing families.
Still, Naymon stressed that this figure is likely an undercount, especially given the fear some families feel about being identified in a politically fraught climate. She also pointed to the importance of further questioning this data, emphasizing the importance of deeper analysis. This deeper analysis—such as disaggregating data by race and ethnicity—reveals critical differences in student experiences, like where students sleep at night and the specific challenges they face. Without asking deeper questions, such as whether shelter services truly meet the needs of Black students or how to better reach unsheltered Native and white students, policymakers risk missing opportunities for more targeted and equitable solutions.
Expanding the Definition of Homelessness
Director of Policy & Advocacy Aaron Yared added that the conversation must move beyond unsheltered homelessness. Many students are “doubled up” or couch surfing—technically housed but still experiencing instability. According to their research, these students face similar academic outcomes as those in shelters or on the streets, challenging outdated assumptions that a roof alone is enough.
This nuance often gets lost in government responses, which are limited by statute and budget restrictions. “Our work is to ask these questions,” Yared noted, “and look beyond official narratives to tell a more complete story of homelessness.”
Bridging the Gap Between Data and Policy
A key challenge remains: how to get policymakers to take timely and informed action. Neal Morton recounted past experiences where lawmakers simply didn’t believe the scale of student homelessness—or refused to act until forced to by crisis.
Dr. Moore emphasized the need to bring legislators closer to the realities faced by families and students. Too often, the loudest voices in policymaking are backed by money, not data. He advocated for stronger bridges between researchers, practitioners, and lawmakers, noting the importance of showing how one set of data can inform multiple sectors—education, child welfare, and human services.
“People live whole lives,” Dr. Moore said, “but our systems are siloed. We have to stop forcing people to navigate fragmented systems and instead get those systems to respond to people’s needs.”
Advocacy and Accountability
Yared, who also works as a registered lobbyist, acknowledged that not all lobbyists are created equal. He distinguished between advocacy and lobbying for corporate interests, pointing to the imbalance of power in policymaking. Wealthy individuals and corporations often hold more sway than grassroots coalitions.
Ultimately, panelists agreed that the path forward involves a mix of hard data and compelling personal stories to sway decision-makers. Anecdotes paired with evidence can drive home the human impact of policy failures—and successes.
“Accountability isn’t a one-way street,” Dr. Moore concluded. “We vote, we raise our voices, and we bring data and stories to make change.”
