District and Community
Leadership Team
May 19, 2011
Panel Presentation
Jan Cohen, ICSP of Susquehanna County
Carlyn Fontini, Scranton Counseling Center
Elaine Geroulo, Northeastern Educational IU 19
Theresa Kaub, Montrose School District
Michael Lynch, Northwestern Human Services
Judi Neri, Lourdesmont
Kelly Perales, Community Care Behavioral Health
Anne Salerno, Scranton School District
© 2010 Community Care Behavioral Health
What is Community Care?
• Non-profit behavioral health managed care organization
(BHMCO)
• Public health mission
• Transformation of mental health services to children and families
• Affiliated partner in PA PBS Network – have co-director and
coordinator
• Partnering with school districts for integration of services, along
with other child serving systems
Fragmented Structures
Student
Assistance
Teams
Fragmented Practices
Student
Support
Leaders
RtI
School-based
Mental Health
Services
SEL
STUDENTS
in one school
Special
Education
Student
Assistance
Teams
Social
Work
Services
Family
Coordinators
Pre-referral
Interventions
After School
Programs
How does a school decide how to support different students?
Taking it to Scale
Visibility
Funding
Political
Support
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
Team Structure for Core District/Community Leadership
Team
District
Leadership
Team
Integration
Workgroup
SEL, RtI, PBIS,
Mental Health,
SSHS grant
Data Assessment
Workgroup
Tier 3/Tertiary
Workgroup
Transitions:
JJ, Hospitals,
From school to
school
Supt/
Asst. Supt
Supervisor
SW/Psych
Special
Education
Director
Police
Juvenile
Justice
Building
Principal
Rep.
Core
District and
Community
Leadership
Team
Service
Providers
Family
Groups
Local Area
Network
Co-Convenor
RtI
Coordinator
Homeless
Coordinator
Mental
Health/
708 Board
Curriculum/
Prof. Dev
Building Level Model
Grade
Level
Teachers
Special
Education
Teachers
Community/
Family
Building
Leadership
Team
Mental
Health
Rep.
Principal
SW,
School Psych
Guidance
Why We Need MH/Community Partnerships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One in 5 youth have a MH “condition”
About 70% of those get no treatment
School is “defacto” MH provider
JJ system is next level of system default
1-2% identified by schools as EBD
Those identified have poor outcomes
Suicide is 4th leading cause of death among young adults
Fragmented Policy
Fragmented Practices
AfterSchool
Programs
Special
Education
Clinic
Violence &
Crime
Prevention
Juvenile
Court
Services
Pupil
Services
Community
Based
Organizations
Health
Services
SCHOOL
Drug
Prevention
Mental
Health
Services
Social
Services
Child
Protection
Services
Drug
Services
Adapted from: Health is Academic: A guide to Coordinated School Health Programs (1998).
Edited by E. Marx & S.F. Wooley with D. Northrop. New York: Teachers College Press.
Purpose of Proposed Core
District/Community Leadership Team
"In order to be effective and sustainable, schoolcommunity partnerships require an intentional
commitment on behalf of all involved.”
(Quote from Safe Schools Healthy Students Grant Application)
Possible Tasks/Functions of Core
Leadership Team:
• Developing a three tiered support network that integrates schools
and communities
• Review data for community and school planning
• Develop a consistent mission for mental wellness for all youth
• Address re-positioning staff for more integrated support systems
• Assess how resources can be used differently
• Creating integrated system, procedures and protocols
• Community and District resource mapping
Community Partners Roles in Teams
• Participate in all three levels of systems teaming:
Universal, Secondary, and Tertiary
• Facilitate or co-facilitate tertiary teams around individual
students
• Facilitate or co-facilitate small groups with youth who
have been identified in need of additional supports
Old Approach 
•
•
•
•
Each school works out their own
plan with Mental Health (MH)
agency;
A MH counselor is housed in a
school building 1 day a week to
“see” students;
No data to decide on or monitor
interventions;
“Hoping” that interventions are
working; but not sure.
New Approach
•
•
•
•
District has a plan for integrating
MH at all buildings (based on
community data as well as school
data);
MH person participates in teams
at all 3 tiers;
MH person leads small groups
based on data;
MH person co-facilitates FBA/BIP
or wrap individual teams for
students.
District-wide Tertiary Implementation
Process
•
District meeting quarterly
– District outcomes
– Capacity/sustainability
– Other schools/staff
•
Building meeting monthly
– Check on all levels
– Cross-planning with all levels
– Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap)
•
•
Tertiary Coaching Capacity
Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams
Ensuring Capacity at
All 3 Tiers
•
Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers at startup of universal
–
–
–
–
•
Assess resources and current practices (specialized services)
Review current outcomes of students with higher level needs
Position personnel to guide changes in practice
Begin planning and training with select personnel
All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at
training
every
Montrose School District
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building Principals
District Coach
Superintendent
Mental Health Professionals
Mental Health Clinical Director
ICSP Coordinator
Implementation
• SBBH Team started in September of 2009
• District and Community Leadership Team formed in
January 2010
• Tier One training for core team in spring of 2010
• Implementation of SWPBS at Tier One began in August
2010 for both elementary schools
• Tier Two training for both elementary schools happening
this spring
• Tier One training for junior high to begin in fall
• SBBH Team blending in and providing supports
Scranton School District
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building Principals
District Coach
Special Education Director
Supervisor of Elementary Education
Superintendent
Mental Health Program Directors
Implementation
• SBBH Team started in September of 2009
• District and Community Leadership Team formed in
January 2010
• Tier One training for core team in spring of 2010
• Implementation of SWPBS at Tier One began in August
2010 for two elementary schools and one high school
• Tier Two training for one elementary school is happening
this spring
• On going discussion of district scaling
• SBBH Teams blending in and providing supports.
Montrose SBBH Team
Northwestern Human Services (NHS)
• 2 MHPs and 5 BHWs
– 1 MHP and 2.5 BHWs at Lathrop St. Elementary School
– 1 MHP and 2.5 BHWs at Choconut Valley Elementary
• Each “mini” team meets weekly with school staff to
ensure ongoing dialogue regarding services.
– Referrals of new youth
– Review of ongoing cases
– Discussion of collaboration between education and mental
health
• Collaboration with other child serving systems
Scranton SBBH Team(s)
Scranton Counseling Center (SCC)
Lourdesmont
• One team at Frances Willard and one team at George
Bancroft Elementary Schools provided by SCC with 2
MHPs and 5 BHWs each
• One team at Scranton High School provided by
Lourdesmont with 2 MHPs and 3 BHWs
• Each team meets weekly with school staff to ensure
ongoing dialogue regarding services.
– Referrals of new youth
– Review of ongoing cases
– Discussion of collaboration between education and mental
health
• Collaboration with other child serving systems
School-Wide Systems for Student Success:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
1-5%
1-5%
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
•Individual students
•Assessment-based
•High intensity
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions
•Individual students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-15%
5-15%
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Small group interventions
•Some individualizing
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Small group interventions
• Some individualizing
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008.
Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?”
OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
80-90%
Tier 1/Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/
Secondary
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Check-in/
Check-out (CICO)
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups (SAIG)
Daily Progress
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and
Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Group Intervention with
Individualized Feature
(e.g., Check and Connect -CnC
and Mentoring)
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Wraparound
Continuum of Support for
Tier 2/Secondary-Tier 3/Tertiary Level Systems
1.
Small group interventions: Check-in Check-Out (CICO),
social/academic instructional groups (SAIG), tutor/homework clubs,
etc.
2.
Group interventions with individualized focus: Utilizing a unique
feature for an individual student, e.g. CICO individualized into a
Check & Connect (CnC), mentoring/tutoring, etc.
3.
Simple individual interventions: A simple individualized functionbased behavior support plan for a student focused on one specific
behavior, e.g. brief FBA/BIP-one behavior; curriculum adjustment;
schedule or other environmental adjustments, etc.
4.
Multiple-domain FBA/BIP: A complex function-based behavior
support plan across settings, e.g. FBA/BIP home and school and/or
community
5.
Wraparound: A more complex and comprehensive plan that
addresses multiple life domain issues across home, school and
community, e.g. basic needs, MH treatment, behavior/academic
interventions, as well as multiple behaviors
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008
Interconnected Systems Framework for School Mental Health
Tier I: Universal/Prevention for All
Coordinated Systems, Data, Practices for Promoting Healthy Social
and Emotional Development for ALL Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
School Improvement team gives priority to social and emotional health
Mental Health skill development for students, staff, families and communities
Social Emotional Learning curricula for all students
Safe & caring learning environments
Partnerships between school, home and the community
Decision making framework used to guide and implement best practices that consider unique
strengths and challenges of each school community
Tier 2: Early Intervention for Some
Coordinated Systems for Early Detection, Identification,
and Response to Mental Health Concerns
• Systems Planning Team identified to coordinate referral process, decision rules and progress
monitor impact of intervention
• Array of services available
• Communication system for staff, families and community
• Early identification of students who may be at risk for mental health concerns due to specific
risk factors
• Skill-building at the individual and groups level as well as support groups
• Staff and Family training to support skill development across settings
Tier 3: Intensive Interventions for Few
Individual Student and Family Supports
• Systems Planning team coordinates decision rules/referrals for this
level of service and progress monitors
• Individual team developed to support each student
• Individual plans may have array of interventions/services
• Plans can range from one to multiple life domains
• System in place for each team to monitor student progress
Adapted from the ICMHP Interconnected Systems Model for School Mental Health, which was originally adapted from Minnesota Children’s Mental Health Task Force, Minnesota Framework for a
Coordinated System to Promote Mental Health in Minnesota; center for Mental Health in Schools, Interconnected Systems for Meeting the Needs of All Youngsters.
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
Universal
Team
Plans SW &
Class-wide
supports
Universal
Support
Secondary
Systems Team
Problem Solving
Team
Tertiary
Systems Team
Uses Process data;
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
Standing team; uses
FBA/BIP process for
one youth at a time
Uses Process data;
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
CICO
Brief
SAIG
Group w.
individual
feature
Brief
FBA/BIP
Sept. 1, 2009
FBA/
BIP
Complex
FBA/BIP
WRAP
Questions?
Panel