Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014
COAGSMH Members Present
Stephanie Dumont, Academic Senate for CCC, South Representative, Golden West College
Jeannine Farrelly, California Youth Empowerment Network Mental Health Association in California
Nancy Montgomery, Irvine Valley College
Vic Ojakian, Parent Advocate
Mary Ojakian, Parent Advocate/American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
Becky Perelli, Health Services Association CCC, City College of San Francisco
Jenny Qian, Orange County Health Care Agency
Duane Short, DHCS
Chris Villa, CSSO representative, Fresno City College
Phone-In Participants
Paula McCroskey, California Association on Postsecondary Education and Disability
Steven Kite, NAMI
CalMHSA
Ann Collentine
Presenter
Susan Quinn, HSACCC
Foundation for CCCs
Colleen Ammerman
Heather McClenahen
Lee Anne Xiong
SMHP Project Partners
Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai (CARS)
Christina Borbely (CARS)
Amy Springmeyer (CARS)
Bob Saltz (PIRE)
CCC Chancellor’s Office
Betsy Sheldon
Recap from January
The COAG agenda is driven by group consensus. This will continue to be the case. The group today will identify,
at the end of the session, what are the next steps that will comprise the subsequent agenda.
The May 1 meeting agenda was developed to address the action items from the prior meeting:
 Align CalMHSA funding sustainability plan criteria to SMHP
 Identify data and how it can be used
 Report out from workgroups
 Review and discuss CAYEN TAY focus group findings
 Report on barriers and lessons learned that led to CBG underspending of budget
 Explore the conversion of resources into mobile apps or other programs
CalMHSA Updates
Document1
1|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014
Sustainability Plan
The CalMHSA Sustainability Plan includes two phases:
 Phase I: July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015
 Phase II: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2017
Criteria will be used for continuing projects with an emphasis on sustainability (see handout in packet). If fully
funded, the estimated cost for Phase I Priorities (FY 14–15) is $18.5M, which is a reduction from the current
annual funding level of $39M. Phase I funding is estimated at:
 Suicide Prevention - $8.8 million
 Stigma Reduction - $6.6 million
 Student Mental Health - $3.7 million
The foundation of the plan depends on County contributions that range from 4-7%. Letters of commitment from
counties were requested by May 1. Counties can indicate which, if any, priorities they support in their letter of
commitment. Of the 58 counties, 53 are expected to send a letter. A taskforce formed last year to provide
guidance to define sustainability for Phase II. The draft plan will go to advisory committee for public review in
July. In August, the Board will review and vote on the plan. Selections of projects will be through competitive
process (RFP). In August, the taskforce will present guidance for the second phase of the sustainability plan.
RAND Evaluation
The initial data and reports from RAND indicate increased mental health awareness in California.
Discussion/Comments
 It was suggested that CMHDA directors advocate and reach out to leaders. The message needs to be
repeated because of the need for integrated funding; not sole source.
 A question was posed regarding services for veterans, particularly in Southern California. CalMHSA has
targeted higher education for veteran programs. To date, 17 CCC SMHP Welcome Home Veterans trainings
have been held. Further, several counties provide services on campuses through county innovation funds.
For example, Orange Coast College’s DropZone is staffed by volunteers and peer staff to provide referral
links, etc. Local PEI is a key contact for CCCs who need to be part of the planning process. While the focus on
veterans was a deliverable, the project is tasked with the broad student mental health issue.
 May 13th is CA Mental Health Awareness Day. This will be youth-led launch of Directing Change. Members
are encouraged to participate and invite as many people as possible to attend. Legislators are interested.
Youth will be on hand. The event will include a mix of sessions and mediums for engagement and
information dissemination.
Report Out From Workgroups
ACHA-NCHA Survey Data, Becky Perelli
Since the last meeting, the workgroup has met to review dataset and identify a need for additional support for
sub-group analysis. With 17,000 student responses, it is the largest dataset of information from community
colleges – and it was a substantial effort to support CCCs in completing the assessment process. Note that the
reason the sample size is so large is because it was required of the CBGs. This is one way SMHP leveraged
resources to build a robust dataset that represents the status of mental health in community colleges. The
COAGSMH will have opportunity as a group to review the impressive data findings from this.
Document1
2|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014
CCC/CMH Toolkit, Colleen Ammerman
The toolkit, which resulted from the January COAGSMH meeting, is the tangible piece to serve as an educational
resource on how CCCs and counties can collaborate for a referral network. The design of the toolkit is based on
regional variations: rural; mid; urban. Mutual support and leveraging of resources given the respective
infrastructures is the emphasis.
The day long kick off meeting in Southern CA will be June 12 with subsequent calls/webinars to develop the
product and garner feedback. The workgroup has a nice representation from CCCs and counties; additional
interested parties are invited to participate.
CCCCO, Chris Villa
The Governor’s budget for 2014/15 included $100 million funding for SSSP and an additional $100 million for
student equity plans (http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/StudentEquity.aspx). The revised
budget released in May maintained these figures. If money is allocated, the equity plan criteria needs to be
finalized by June since the funding will become available in July, and equity plans are due November. There was
interest from the group to explore whether there is an opportunity to define the criteria for upcoming equity
funding to include support to address systematically support for student mental health in the community college
system including funding. Colleges often write their plans based on the template provided by the Chancellor’s
Office who indicated that there is local college flexibility to develop plans and define target groups. Prior plan
criteria focused on campus safety.
Although, funding is not set there is momentum to address student mental health. Data on impacts of certain
student groups or gaps in student achievement could guide the criteria development and expand the limited
definition of diversity from ethnicity, race, socio-economic status to include sexual orientation, mental health
wellness, etc.) The COAGSMH would like to suggest that colleges have the option to have mental health as an
option for how to use the money. The first step is to include the language in the criteria.
Additional Information
Chancellor’s Office Student Equity web page:
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/StudentEquity.aspx


Student Equity Fact Sheet
Student Equity Plan Template (March 2014)
Action Items:
 The COAGSMH will submit statement/recommendation to the Chancellor’s Office that in consideration of the
use of equity funds, student mental health be included in the language criteria provided to colleges by the
Chancellor’s Office. The recommendation will include data (RAND, PIRE) for the rationale for the request. The
letter will include a request for response or feedback from CCCCO.
 Chris Villa will draft the language for the advisory group to review.
 Chris Villa will also follow up and discuss further with the CSSO President.
 Stephanie Dumont will share the letter of recommendation with the Academic Senate representative on the
workgroup.
Document1
3|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014


A copy of the letter will be sent to Ann Collentine.
Stephanie Dumont and Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai will review Title 5 guidelines regarding professional
development as a possible reference point to use equity funds to support training for academic counselors.
Alignment with CALMHSA Funding Criteria
(See the adopted criteria in the PEI document Administrative Matters Agenda 9.A pg. 12 of 172)
Ann Collentine suggested the CCCs have strong data and need to continue to look at how to package that. This
information may be used to apply for Phase II funding as well as for public relations purposes within the CCC
system to educate the system more broadly – more expansive range of faculty. CCCs need to build support at
local level and need to garner buy-in at all local colleges, associations, and COAG to come together and advocate
for student mental health being a priority.
The group conducted a modified SWOT approach to assess SMHP status and the tie to CalMHSA funding criteria.
Criteria
Regional
Evidence of
impact






Evidence Based

Practices




General

leveraging







Adverse


Strengths
Regional Strategizing Forums
Data/Value
Cross sharing of information
Weaknesses
Regional Strategizing Forums
Data

Reached almost every CCC 
and as a result expanded 
awareness
Data

Access
Referrals
Awareness
Kognito trainings
In-kind partnerships

Welcome Home Veterans 
training

Transitional Age Youth

In-kind support for trainings
by request

Captive audience
Student needs

Student reachability

Ground up efforts –
Connections with CMH
Betsy Sheldon’s position
Build capacity

Outcome measures minimal
Final project data incomplete
Packaging
Clear articulation needed
Document1




Difficult to move from

awareness to Evidence Based
Practices implementation
Disparate health services

SSSP trumps SMH

CCCCO buy-in

Student success does not
include SMH

Health not IDed as core value
on local level
LOTS of resources to
recognize/prioritize
Top down support
Loss of investment to

Impacts
Positioned
Collaborative/connected
referrals
Partnerships established
MOUs for services
Create and enhance
Mobile apps positioned as
opportunity for assessment,
replication of the models
most effective
Policy development
Inclusion of data
Impacts how system defines
success
Factors influencing success
Culminate the information
and package it
One-time funding to
4|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014
impacts of loss
Starting to implement
Is it a short 
term effort?

Invested in

systems/infrastructure

Positioned as opportunity
replication of the models 
most effective

institutionalize
Lack of systems infrastructure
to deliver services
Not yet there yet

Lack of systems infrastructure
to deliver services
One-time funding
institutionalize – once
funding lost, efforts lost and
compete against other
efforts within system
Lose momentum
Discussion:
With the amount of data available, SMHP is poised to do great dissemination because that’s where SMHP can
really get some leverage with partners. It was suggested the information could be packaged similarly to the CCC
SMHP Program Report Spring 2014 pamphlet; CCCSMHP Partner Summary of Evaluation Findings; CalMHSA
Report. It was noted, however, that often the pamphlet/flyer format is not effective as colleagues often
overlook it.
Bob Saltz recommended an “actionable pitch” that includes concrete requests with budgets and tangible
solutions the leadership can adapt/adopt/act on. For example, there is a movement from awareness to a focus
on actions such as improving access, collaborating/connecting referrals, tying in to ACA to identify means for
student coverage, providing screening processes, changing service delivery, and connecting to existing initiative
and enhancements to successes to date. Changes to access mental health services may also include functional
student email systems for referrals and follow ups; mobile apps that ping peers to remind them to follow
up/support a friend; health coverage for students through ACA (e.g., bulk rate).
Susan Quinn agreed this is right at the crux of the public health model. If we are looking at strengths and
weaknesses, we have the data about the needs – but a weakness of the system is the general leveraging
capacity for all of these 112 CCCs. Having something grounded in every college: a health professional with a
public health background who can do the follow up to get the student to services; the need to have a health
center on every campus. These are not infrastructures that the state invests in; these are funded by student fees
and are optional. The CCC system needs to acknowledge the weakness in investing in this infrastructure. It is the
only way that evidence based services can be delivered.
Colleges also have a culture of one-time funding with goal to institutionalize programs; when the funding ends,
the momentum is often lost. It is difficult to compete against other efforts that are within the system. It is
difficult to get traction for sustainability and advancement. The associations that represent staff, faculty,
counselors, etc. have influence on what is happening at the top (e.g., the equity dollars). The tsunami of
“student success” is huge and connecting it [mental health] to student wellness is where it will happen. The way
to leverage this opportunity is to tie student success to student wellness.
Jenny Qian from Riverside County Health Care Agency suggested the local County PEI models for ages 0-18
populations could be adapted for college level.
Action item:
Document1
5|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014

CARS will identify documentation for each CalMHSA PEI category and distribute to COAG for response,
incorporation, and strengthen.
HSACCC CCC-NCHA Data 2013: Select Information on the Mental Health Status of Community College
Students, Susan Quinn (see PPT: HSACCC Research Findings 2014)
Susan Quinn with the Health Services Association of CCCs (HSACCC) provided a snapshot of community colleges
that participated in the annual ACHA-NCHA survey collected from CCCs and analyzed by the HSACCC. The
dataset is the largest collected. Students self-reported information (e.g., suicide ideation). The anonymous selfreport survey is psychometrically sound. The findings indicated an increased risk in all seven content areas.
In addition to the ACHA-NCHA survey, the HSACCC conducts a survey of health services every 3-years. 34
colleges participated, primarily the Campus Based Grants. The survey included seven major areas:







Demographics
Compliance
Funding Stability
Professional Staffing
Scope of Services
Outcome Measurement
Mental Health Services
Trend analysis is available that demonstrates the impact and longitudinal impacts. While trends are available
from the HSACCC data between 2010 and 2013, caution should be given to correlation to the SMHP grant
funding, which is on a different timeline.
What’s Working: Select Data on the Progress and Impact to Date of CCC SMHP, Bob Saltz (see PPT)
Bob Saltz from PIRE presented sources of data, types of data collected, and results to date for CCC SMHP. Bob
Saltz notes that there is pressure to have findings about “what works” before all the data can realistically be
collected.
Discussion:
The question of the definition of “suicide policies” arose. The question/survey was directed to very specific,
targeted informants, typically the health person on campus. No definition was provided; rather the respondent
answered the question based on their interpretation. Persistent follow up, leveraging meetings, creating public
record of action/inaction, and generating a report are all efforts to advocate for suicide prevention policy.
The goal for last few COAGSMH meetings has been to identify how data can be used to promote student mental
health wellness on campuses. Messaging. Packaging. Can the findings on trends be integrated into the
statements made about the project? How can the data integrate with the CalMHSA sustainability criteria? The
COAGSMH must be careful to attribute trends to SMHP – it isn’t a causal effect and only the “health information
dissemination” component is a possible corollary effect.
What are the intermediary marketing opportunities: for the system, for other funding sources, and for state
level funding partners? What are we marketing? The substantiated need? The program impact? Emphasis
Document1
6|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014
should be on creating equity by creating snapshot of needs comparative to other needs. Governor's Prevention
Advisory Council (GPAC) may also provide an opportunity to integrate all health systems into focused,
coordinated care as an approach to making impact on health status? It doesn’t stop at substance abuse and
mental health – it’s about public health.
Action Item:
 Becky Perelli and Bob Saltz will identify relationship of PIRE’s CCC SMHP and ACHA-NCHA data and link to
tangible proposed solutions.
 CARS will coordinate how to package key findings from the data and explore medium to package and means
to disseminate results.
The Student Voice: CAYEN Transitional Age Youth Focus Group Findings (see PPT)
Jeannine Farrelly, CAYEN Project Director, discussed the report, Examining TAY Attitudes and Perspectives of the
Mental Health System, a compilation of findings from four focus groups conducted with transitional age youth
(TAY). The focus groups focused on why TAY who struggle with mental illness do not receive the help they need
and challenges and barriers to seeking or receiving services. A copy of the report will be shared with COAGSMH
members.
Member Announcements
Vic Ojakian: On Tuesday, April 29, the California State Assembly Business, Professionals, and Consumer
Protection Committee, held a hearing on AB 2198. This bill would require certain mental health professionals to
have suicide assessment, treatment, and management training. About 20 individuals and 10 organizations sent
supporting messages and maybe 20- 25 supporters attended the BPCP hearing. In a bi-partisan vote, the BPCP
Assembly members approved moving AB 2198 forward. The vote was nine for and one abstention. Later on the
same day, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, California’s key legislator on mental health
matters, stated he would co-sponsor the Senate version of AB 2198. Next up is an Assembly Appropriations
Committee hearing in about two weeks. Members were asked to send a personal email/letter supporting the
bill.
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
 The COAGSMH will submit statement/recommendation to the Chancellor’s Office that in consideration of
the use of equity funds, student mental health be included in the language criteria provided to colleges by
the Chancellor’s Office. The recommendation will include data (RAND, PIRE) for the rationale for the
request. The letter will include a request for response or feedback from CCCCO.
 Chris Villa will draft the language for the advisory group to review.
 Chris Villa will also follow up and discuss further with the CSSO President.
 Stephanie Dumont will share the letter of recommendation with the Academic Senate representative on the
workgroup.
 A copy of the letter will be sent to Ann Collentine.
 Stephanie Dumont and Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai will review Title 5 guidelines regarding professional
development as a possible reference point to use equity funds to support training for academic counselors.
 CARS will tie SMHP with PEI funding criteria and distribute to COAGSMH members for response,
incorporation, and strengthen.
Document1
7|Page
Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)
Meeting Summary
May 1, 2014



Becky Perelli and Bob Saltz will identify relationship of PIRE’s CCC SMHP and ACHA data and link to tangible
proposed solutions.
CARS will coordinate how to package key findings from data and explore medium to package and means to
disseminate results.
Jeannine Farrelly will provide CARS an electronic copy of the CAYEN report, Examining TAY Attitudes and
Perspectives of the Mental Health System.
Document1
8|Page