Interconnected Systems Framework

advertisement

Interconnected Systems Framework

Local Implementation Sites

Experiences and Lessons Learned

Lucille Eber, Illinois PBIS Network

Jill Johnson, Illinois PBIS Network

Kelly Perales, Community Care Behavioral Health

Bob Stevens, Charleston South Carolina

Mark Weist, University of South Carolina

October 25, 2012

Center for School Mental Health

National Conference

Content for Today…

How Multi-tiered Systems of Support

(MTSS) can enhance mental health in schools

Installing SMH through MTSS in Schools

The Interconnected Systems Framework

(ISF)

Why We Need

MH 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

Suicide is 4th leading cause of death among young adults

Why We Need

MH Partnerships (cont.)

At least twice as many youth need high levels of support than identified as EBD.

Youth who are identified as EBD have experienced very poor outcomes

Schools can’t do it alone; partnerships with communities are needed for success

Advancing Education Effectiveness:

Interconnecting School Mental Health

& School-wide Positive Behavior Support

June 2012 – September 2013

Collaborative effort of the OSEP TA Center of PBIS,

Center for School Mental Health, and IDEA

Partnership(NASDE) bringing together national-level experts in the SMH and PBIS, state and district leaders, and selected personnel from exemplar sites currently implementing collaborative initiatives.

Advancing Education Effectiveness:

Interconnecting School Mental Health

& School-wide Positive Behavior Support (cont.)

Publish a monograph that provides a summary and framework for interconnection, documents examples of success, and lays out a research, policy, and technical assistance agenda for the future.

The Context

Over 18,000 schools engaged in implementation of SWPBIS (MTSS ) prevention based system

Current focus on capacity to scale-up

MTSS as platform to install effective interventions for youth w/or at-risk of EBD

The Context

(cont.)

Emphasis now on scaling with expansion and connection to other systems

– i.e. academic, juvenile justice, mental health

Emphasis on deliberate actions that foster connections w/families & community

“Expanded” School

Mental Health

Full continuum of effective mental health promotion and intervention for ALL students

Reflecting a “shared agenda” involving school-family-community partnerships

Collaborating community professionals (augment the work of school-employed staff

Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

(www.pbis.org)

Decision making framework to guide selection and implementation of best practices for improving academic /behavioral functioning

Data-based, measurable outcomes, evidencebased practices, systems to support effective implementation

Core Features of a Response to

Intervention (RtI) Approach

Investment in prevention, screening and early intervention for students not at “benchmark”

Multi-tiered intervention approach

Use of progress monitoring and problem-solving process at all 3-tiers

Research-based practices and active use of data for decision-making at all 3-tiers

Use of progress monitoring and problem-solving process at all 3-tiers

ISF Defined

– structure and process for education and mental health systems to interact in most effective and efficient way.

key stakeholders in education and mental health system who have the authority to reallocate resources, change role and function of staff, and change policy. strong interdisciplinary, cross-system collaboration.

tiered prevention logic as the overall organizer to develop an action plan.

cross system problem solving teams that use data to decide which evidence based practices to implement.

ongoing progress monitoring for both fidelity and impact. active involvement by youth, families, and other school and community stakeholders.

Structure for Developing an ISF:

A District/Community leadership that includes families, develops, supports and monitors a plan that includes:

Community partners participating in all three levels of systems teaming in schools: Universal, Secondary, and

Tertiary

Team of SFC partners review data and design interventions that are evidence-based and can be progress monitored

MH providers from both school and community develop, facilitate, coordinate and monitor all interventions through one structure

Old Approach

New Approach

Each school works out their own plan with Mental

Health (MH) agency;

District has a plan for integrating MH at all buildings

(based on community data as well as school data);

Old Approach

A MH counselor is housed in a school building 1 day a week to

“see” students;

New Approach

MH person participates in teams at all 3 tiers;

Old Approach

No data to decide on or monitor interventions;

New Approach

MH person leads group or individual interventions based on data;

SPARCS Integration

Jill Mathews-Johnson, MSW, LCSW

IL PBIS Network jill.johnson@pbisillinois.org

Interconnected Systems Framework

Systems Features

Exploration and Adoption

Installation Phase

Initial Implementation

Full Implementation

Innovation and Sustainability

Fixsen, 2010

Pathway to ISF

Youth and Family Service Director and IL PBIS

TAC passion for ISF

Relationship built four years earlier in writing a

SSHS grant in Urbana

SAMSHA grant, Champaign County

Local leaders and administrators belief in need for integration to address all students’ needs

Systems Features

Exploration and Adoption

At the building level

Admin team was meeting weekly and looking at the data to determine needs

Gaps were identified – mental health

Administrators, Community Elements Director for Youth

Services and PBIS TAC met to determine intervention to meet needs and continued meeting every few weeks to set up system features

Secondary Systems Team was formed

Organizational Structures

Administrative

Team Centennial

HS &

Secondary Systems

Team

Liaisons

Jill & Juli

Community

Elements

(United Way/708

Board/ACCESS

Intervention - SPARCS

SPARCS Structured Psychotherapy for

Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress

Mission of SPARCS: To enhance trauma focused services available to traumatized children and adolescents (complex trauma)

Group members – history of chronic interpersonal trauma, living with significant ongoing stressors, may or may not meet full criteria for PTSD and exhibit functional impairment. http://sparcstraining.com/

SPARCS

Evidenced informed intervention

16-one hour groups

Adolescents 12-21

History of trauma (broadly defined)

Living with ongoing stressors

Exhibit functional impairment

Trauma Screening (TESI)

Interconnected Systems Framework

Systems Features

Exploration and Adoption

Installation Phase

Initial Implementation

Full Implementation

Innovation and Sustainability

Installation Phase

Systems Features

Community mental health staff (Director and Program

Coordinator) with the assistance of the PBIS TAC set up meetings with key school administrators (Principal, AP’s) to introduce SPARCS to them

Follow-up meetings periodically to deal with larger system issues

PowerPoint presentation of key program features presented to admins, school social workers, school psychologist and counselors

Shifting of school-based staff roles/responsibilities discussed

The Nuts and Bolts

Discussion of potential target population and how data would be used to identify students

Discussion on how referral process to community provider would happen and who would communicate with student’s parents

Referral form and program flyers developed for school staff to share with parents

One school contact person was identified for on-going communication

(mostly by email) and problem solving as issues arose

This person was key as she was responsive and reliable

Community Elements workers were added to secondary systems team

Organizational Structures

Identifying Students with Needs

Data-based Decision Rules for Entrance

At Centennial, students are referred for SPARCS because they are freshman/freshman status and

They have been through two tier two interventions and have not responded

They are READY (alternative school) students transitioning back to Centennial**

They have had multiple SASS contacts

Meet criteria for trauma experience as screened using the TESI-SR (

Traumatic Events Screening Inventory-Self Report)

** READY, Juvenile Detention & MH providers also providing across the community

Organizational Structures

Funding

SAMHSA SOC Cooperative Agreement

ACCESS Initiative

United Way of Champaign County

Medicaid billing (future)

Probation/Court Services (future

Organizational Structure

Assessing Personnel Skills/Talents

Community Elements personnel hired specifically to provide school-based supports

School-based staff, with behavioral background, are present during group

SPARCS trained

Ongoing support by national SPARCS trainers

Referral to Release Name to

Community Elements

Referral for SPARCS

Back of Referral

School-Community Partner

Information Sheet

Interconnected Systems Framework

Systems Features

Exploration and Adoption

Installation Phase

Initial Implementation

Full Implementation

Innovation and Sustainability

Initial Implementation

System Features

Secondary Systems Team meetings

Meeting twice a month

• to talk through systems response

• to work through system implementation issues

• to build rapport and building relationship

• to communicate and implement with fidelity

Liaisons that understand and can build relationships between the two systems

Initial Implementation

Systems Features

The school staff initiated the referrals to the program by first identifying appropriate youth, contacting parents and receiving permission to provide student’s name to community provider

Community mental health staff completed all intake paperwork and screenings with students/families and subsequent follow-up information

School staff made sure each student arrived to the group on time

Community mental health works facilitated groups and one school social worker sat in on the groups to assist with any issues as they may be related to school policy and staying connected with the students

School staff tracked data to report at year end

Data Systems

School

ODRs

ISS

OSS

Credits/Grades

Attendance

Additional SASS calls (future)

Mental Health

Youth group survey results

(2012-2013) Strengths and Difficulties Questionaire, TESI-R and YOQ

7

6

5

4

1

0

3

2

10

9

8

100%↑

Student 1

Outcomes

School Data – Office Discipline Referrals

ODR Comparison 14 Weeks Before Intervention and 14 Weeks on Intervention

45%↓

Student 2

23%↓

25%↓

Student 4

66%↓

Student 5

37%

Reduction

Overall

Student 3

Students

ODR Total 14 Weeks Before Intervention

ODR Total 14 Weeks On Intervention

15

10

5

0

25

20

Outcomes

School Data – In-School and Out-of-School Suspension

ISS and OSS 14 Weeks Before vs 14 Weeks During Intervention for

Group

23%↓

25% ↓

Total Number ISS Total Number OSS

Offenses

Before

After

Outcomes

School Data – Tardies and Absences

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Unexcused Tardies by

Semester

First Semester

Unexcused Tardies

Second Semester

Unexcused Tardies

Students

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Absences by Semester

Excused and Unexcused

First Semester

Absences

Second Semester

Absences

Students

Outcomes

School Data - Grades

3

2

1

0

5

4

Student 1 Grades by

Semester

3

2

1

0

5

4

A B C

Grades

D F

Student 4 Grades by

Semester

Total Semester 1

Total Semester 2

10

Student 3 Grades by

Semester

5

0

A B C

Grades

D F

Total Semester

1

Total Semester

2

4

3

2

1

0

Total Semester 1

Total Semester 2

A B C

Grades

D F

A

Student 2 Grades by

Semester

B C

Grades

D F

Total Semester 1

Total Semester 2

0

5

Student 5 Grades by

Semester

A B C

Grades

D F

Total Semester

1

Total Semester

2

Staff Feedback

Mental Health Providers

Positives

Being part of Tier II team helpful

Having school staff facilitate arrival/departures from group very helpful

Future Improvements

Need to improve communication with school staff when events occur with students in group

Having one dedicated administrator is essential to coordination

Need more time prior to group start to get to know students/families

Student Feedback

Student Survey Results

1=strongly agree 2=disagree 3= don’t know 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Skills were helpful to me: a) Mindfulness 3.8

b) Self-sooth/distract 4.4

c) LET ‘M GO d) MAKE A LINK

4.0

4.2

Have used skills outside of group 4.4

Student Feedback Continued

What was the best part of group?

“It helped me to make better choices and not get into trouble”

“That you can talk about stress level and feelings”

“It allowed me to share”

“It helped me to identify my sources of anger”

“I liked that it had structure, that we had a lesson plan that we followed and I liked the handbook”

“Food”

Interconnected Systems Framework

Systems Features

Exploration and Adoption

Installation Phase

Initial Implementation

Full Implementation

Innovation and Sustainability

Expansion

Feeder middle school

Other Champaign high school

Alternative school (that Centennial refers out to or receives students back from

Additional sites in: Rantoul and Urbana

How Do We Get Things Started?

Embedding SPARCS in All Three Tiers

SPARCS

How Do We Get Change to Occur?

Lessons Learned

Stakeholders

Decision

Makers

Field

Staff

Student

Outcomes

Liaisons

Administrators

Liaisons who:

– understand both systems

– are open to integration

– have “power” in at least one system

How Do We Get Change to Occur?

Lessons Learned

Schedule meetings with stakeholders

Bi-monthly “Secondary Systems” meetings

Monthly/Quarterly administrative meetings

Allows all stakeholders to have voice

Keeps communication lines open

Establish procedures and protocols

System where academic and behavior interventions linked

Create true partnerships

Stakeholders need to be seen as viable members in both settings (team membership, professional development)

Student and family voice

Make interventions sustainable

Funding

Part of system of support

PAPBS Network

Tertiary Demonstration Project

Community Care as affiliated partner in the PA

Positive Behavior Support (PBS) Network

History of PA SBBH Community of Practice

History of Community Care transformation of children’s behavioral health services

Pennsylvania’s Community of Practice (CoP) on

School Based Behavioral Health (SBBH)

The CoP on SBBH was initially established in 2006 through the Bureau of Special Education (BSE) as a means by which to address schoolbased behavioral health.

Presently, the CoP includes membership of approximately 52 individuals including representatives from the Pennsylvania

Departments of Education, Health, and Public Welfare in addition to youth serving provider agencies, managed care organizations, advocates, and youth and family members.

54

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Local control for counties and school districts

Behavioral health managed care organizations

Carve out

County choice

Community Care

Over half of the counties

Oversight from stakeholders

Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

(OMHSAS)

Systems of Care

Integrated Children’s Service Planning

© 2010 Community Care

Pennsylvania Mental Health

Continuum of Care

Inpatient

Residential Treatment Facility (RTF)

Individualized Residential Treatment (IRT)/TFC/CCR Host Home

Behavioral Health Rehabilitation

Services (BHRS)

Family Based Mental Health Services

(FBMHS)

Family Based Partial Hospital School-Based Mental Health (SBMH)

Outpatient

Intensive Case Management/Resource Coordination (ICM/RC)

Crisis Services (Mobile Crisis, Emergency Room, and Walk-in Crisis Centers)

History of the Development of

School Based Behavioral Health (SBBH) Team Service

A Clinical Home Model

Stakeholder input regarding current BHRS and children’s service delivery

Families

Educators

County partners – child serving systems

Unique opportunity to partner with Department of Welfare and OMHSAS

Transformation of children’s services

Partnership with oversight

Stakeholder input

Development of program description template

56 © 2010 Community Care

Accountable Clinical Home

Accountable TO the family and FOR the care

Accessible, coordinated, and integrated care

Comprehensive service approach

Increased accountability and communication

Single point of contact for behavioral health

School is “launching pad” for services delivered in all settings

Youth continue on the team with varying intensity of service

SBBH Service Components

C

LINICAL

I

NTERVENTIONS

C

ASE

M

ANAGEMENT

C

RISIS

I

NTERVENTION

C

ASE

C

ONSULTATION AND

T

RAINING

for educational staff

SBBH Team Components

L

ICENSED

M

ASTER

S

P

REP

C

LINICIANS

(MHP)

E

XPERIENCED

B

ACHELOR

S

W

ORKERS

P

REP

(BHW)

A

DMIN

A

GENCY

S

UPPORT

C

ONSULTATION TO

MHP

S

PRN

Community Care Support of SBBH Teams

LEARNING

COLLABORATIVE

T

RAINING

COACHING

M

ODEL

F

IDELITY

TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE

E

VIDENCE

-

BASED

P

RACTICES

CARE

MANAGEMENT

61

Learning Collaborative

A Community of Practice for Providers

Training, case consultation, coaching – stability of workforce, integrity of practices, fidelity to model

Platform –

Family systems theory and interventions

Resiliency/recovery principles and supports

Trauma informed care

Identification of co-occuring disorders

Positive behavior interventions and supports

© 2010 Community Care

District and Community Leadership

Team

Quarterly meetings

Stakeholder representation – System of Care

Implementer’s blueprint

Systems, data and practices

Scaling and sustainability

Time Line

School Year

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Activity

Community Care engaged district through ICSP regarding SBBH

Team

SBBH Team begins work within district – September 2009

District and Community Leadership Team is established, district commitment signed, tertiary demonstration project begins – spring

2010

Tier One SWPBIS is fully implemented with kickoff at the start of the school year

Tier Two training begins in the spring of 2011 with some implementation

All three tiers are being implemented at both elementary schools

Montrose Junior High receives Tier One training in fall, with “soft” kickoff in January 2012

Discussion of SBBH Team model expanding into Junior and Senior

High

Montrose

Jr High implementation

SBBH and school collaboration – doing more with less – reallocation of resources

Fiscal and clinical responsibility

Community connections and partners

ICSP - SOC

Montrose Elementary Schools

K-6 th

Grade

Data

Tertiary, Tier 3, Individual

Child Outcomes Survey

Strengths and Difficulties Q.

Teacher feedback

Academic data

Secondary, Tier 2

Group/Individual

Data from Tier One team

Progress monitoring

Data decision rules

Universal, Tier 1

Whole School

ODRs, teacher nominations,

Card system, MMS,

(lessons learned)

80-90%

5-10%

1-5% 1-5%

5-10%

Practices

Tertiary, Tier 3, Individual

Guidance counselors see individual students

SBBH Team

80-90%

Secondary, Tier 2

Group/Individual

Guidance counselors run

Targeted groups

IST

CICO

• mentoring

Universal, Tier 1,

Whole school

Guidance counselors teach

“I Can Problem Solve” lessons

Treehab D and A awareness

Bully prevention/Character Ed

Peer Mediation

Scranton School District

Year One

2009-10

Year Two

2010-11

District and Community Leadership Team established.

District commits to implementing SWPBIS with fidelity across the district.

Year Three

2011-12

Year Four

2012-13

SBBH Teams begin implementation at Frances Willard Elementary, George Bancroft Elementary, and Scranton High. A Tier Three support.

Frances Willard Elementary, George

Bancroft Elementary, and Scranton High all receive training to implement Tier

One SWPBIS.

Frances Willard Elementary, George Bancroft Elementary, and Scranton High all implement Tier One SWPBIS.

Year Five

2013-14

Year Six

2014-15

Frances Willard Elementary reaches implementation fidelity.

Frances Willard Elementary receives training for implementation of Tier Two and begins implementation.

Frances Willard Elementary implements three tiers of Interconnected Systems Framework.

Isaac Tripp Elementary, McNichols Plaza

Elementary, and South Scranton

Intermediate all receive training to implement Tier One SWPBIS.

Isaac Tripp Elementary, McNichols Plaza Elementary, and South Scranton

Intermediate all implement Tier One SWPBIS.

George Bancroft Elementary and Scranton High receive training for implementation of Tier Two and begin implementation

Scranton High receives training and begins implementation of RENEW.

SBBH Teams begin implementation at Northeast Intermediate, John F. Kennedy Elementary, McNichols Plaza Elementary, and

John G. Whittier Elementary.

John F. Kennedy Elementary, John G.

Whittier Elementary, and Northeast

Intermediate all receive training to implement Tier One SWPBIS.

John F. Kennedy Elementary, John G.

Whittier Elementary, and Northeast

Intermediate all implement Tier One

SWPBIS.

Scranton High School

Needs

School-Wide Systems for Student Success:

A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model:

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions

Tier 2/Secondary Interventions

Tier 1/Universal Interventions80-90%

5-15%

1-5%

1-5%

Resources

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions

SBBH Team

Outpatient therapy

SB Partial

Guidance – individual support

5-15%

80-90%

SAP

Guidance – groups

Community Partners – groups

Resource Officer

Tier 1/Universal Interventions

SWPBIS

Drug and Alcohol

Prevention

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/school-wide.htm

Key features

Systems

District and building teaming models

Facilitation, technical assistance, coaching

Stakeholder participation and buy-in

Practices

Mental health and school staff work in an integrated way to support students across tiers

Using assessment and screening in order to determine which

EBPs to use, progress monitor

One plan for both education and mental health

Data

Shared decision rules

Used for decision making with all stakeholders at the table – school, mental health, other child serving systems, family

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.2

1.0

0.8

1.8

1.6

1.4

Outcomes

Change in Family Functioning

Change at 3 mos

Not Implementing

Change at 6 mos

Low Fidelity

Change at 9 mos

High Fidelity

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

Outcomes

Change in Child Functioning

Change at 3 mos

Not Implementing

Change at 6 mos

Low Fidelity

Change at 9 mos

High Fidelity

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Outcomes – SDQ-P

Change in Difficulties Score

Change Q1 Change Q2

Not Implementing Low Fidelity High Fidelity

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5

-4.0

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

Outcomes – SDQ-T

Change in Difficulties Score

Change Q1 Change Q2

Not Implementing Low Fidelity High Fidelity

The Smith Family

Jason was referred to the SBBH Team in November. He is a seven-year-old first grader who was having difficulty coming to school and being separated from his mother.

When he was four, Jason and his family were in a car accident in a rural area. The members of the family were taken to different hospitals and Jason did not know where his mom was or if she was okay.

Every day, since the first day of school, Jason’s mom would bring him into the school and the school staff would literally have to peel Jason off of his mother and hold him so she could leave.

The Smith Family cont.

Once referred to the team, they were immediately able to work with Jason and his family to create strategies to help him separate more smoothly.

Jason found the SBBH Team office/room a safe place to be. His mother also spent time there to help create a nice transition area.

After the Holiday break, Jason began riding the bus for the fist time, accompanied by one of the BHWs from the team.

Soon, Jason was able to ride the bus on his own, increasing his confidence and allowing him some relief from his anxiety.

Child Outcomes Survey (COS) Family Functioning:

Child X

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Solve Problems Shared Decisions

Child Outcomes Survey (COS) Child Functioning and

Therapeutic Inventory: Child X

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

FAMILY PEERS SCHOOL TASKS ave inventory

Child Outcomes Survey (COS) Overall Wellness:

Child X

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Strength and Difficulties-Parent Report: Child X

10,00

9,00

8,00

7,00

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

11.1.11

Emotional Symptoms

Peer Problems

Conduct Problems

ProSocial

2.1.12

Hyperactivity

Strength and Difficulties-Teacher Report: Child X

10

9

8

7

6

3

2

5

4

1

0

11.1.11

Emotional Symptoms

Peer Problems

Conduct Problems

ProSocial

2.1.12

Hyperactivity

Lessons Learned

Return on investment

Funding efficiency

Scaling and sustaining SBBH Teams – size

Community “politics”

SBMH Conference

October 2012

Bob Stevens, Charleston, SC

Charleston County, SC

45,000 students in 78 schools.

Over 100 miles from the most distant schools

Rural, inner city, and suburban schools

Student Population: 46% African American; 46% Caucasian;

3% Mixed; Asian 2%; 1% Native Amer.; 1% other

14% Identify themselves as Latin or Hispanic

60% receive free or reduced meals

9.5% have IEP’s

6% not English proficient

Historically in CCSD schools; nurses, guidance counselors, a few contracted mental health counselors, para-professional behavior support staff; school psychologists not school based.

School-Wide Systems for Student Success:

A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Academic Systems

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions

•Individual students

•Assessment-based

•High intensity

Tier 2/Secondary Interventions

•Some students (at-risk)

•High efficiency

•Rapid response

•Small group interventions

• Some individualizing

5-15%

1-5%

Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%

•All students

•Preventive, proactive

1-5%

5-15%

Behavioral Systems

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions

•Individual students

•Assessment-based

•Intense, durable procedures

Tier 2/Secondary Interventions

•Some students (at-risk)

•High efficiency

•Rapid response

•Small group interventions

•Some individualizing

80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions

•All settings, 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

Old Mental Health Provider Job Description

Provides services on IEP

Maintains channels of communication with principals and teachers

Provides assistance in crisis situations

Maintains communication with students, parents, educational personnel, and community

Provides and participates in in-service

Conducts seminars for parents

Other duties as assigned.

Newly Designed Job Description

Participate in building based activities that support the School Improvement Plan

Participate in Secondary and Tertiary intervention planning meetings

Participate in development and implementation of strategies and activities related to PBIS

Use data to determine effectiveness of research based intervention (pre and post)

Use the three tiered approach to intervention planning to enter, progress monitor, and exit youth from interventions (based on data)

Providing coaching and professional development for staff

Job Description (New, cont.)

Provide conflict resolution training, drug and alcohol education, and social skills training based on secondary or tertiary team

Provide direct services to children in crisis

Provide school social work services to children as determined in the

IEP process based on a continuum of preventative interventions

Develop and maintain working relationships with students, parents, educational personnel, and community

Participate in the development of Tertiary interventions in the form of

FBA/BIP or wraparound teams

Common Trends

Moving from reactive to preventative

Time efficient and least restrictive

Moving from Tier 1 to leading Tier 2/3

Facilitating Tier 3 Interventions

Serving students needs vs. “labeled” populations

Systems approach

Intervention vs. Referral to Professional

Developing Charleston’s -

Interconnected Systems Framework

Low Level

Communication between Providers

To

Collaboration with Providers

To

High level

Integration of Providers

Developing an Integrated Systems Framework

School-based Mental Health in Charleston SC

Developing an Integrated Systems Framework

School-based Mental Health in Charleston SC

Developing an Integrated Systems Framework

School-based Mental Health in Charleston SC

The Evolution in Charleston, SC

Mental health counselors when supported by

Medicaid

Part-time guidance in many schools which focused primarily on academic counseling.

Very limited number of social workers in the district office working in the Office of Exceptional Children supporting identified students

School psychologists assigned to multiple schools with “testing” as priority.

From 0 to 60 in two years

Expanded Mental Health

Federal Counseling Grant

Charleston Promise Neighborhood

Medical University of South Carolina

Climate Grant

Gear Up Grant

Allocation from General Operating Fund

Community In Schools Support

ISF

SSW, MH, CIS developing new roles in CCSD schools

Integrating with current systems, creating new systems

Existing Teams – School Leadership

PBIS

TEAM Two

CORE (Tier 3)

External Partners

Use Data to Drive Activities

Data that will lead to intervention before referral

At-Risk Alert System

SWIS

Social Emotional Measures

Intervention Vs. Referral

ARAS

(pronounced “air-us”) is the At-Risk Alert System: a data tool developed by Charleston County School

District as part of a federal Safe Schools/Healthy

Students grant.

Helps identify students potentially at-risk by using existing academic & behavior data.

Transforms data into reports to support effective decision making.

Provides composite views of magnitudes of risk factors existing for students and schools.

Supports a variety of student support models.

Risk Indicators

ARAS uses student academic and behavior data currently available in PowerSchool and other district data bases as indicators to assess potential risk.

For each of eight indicators, students are assigned to one of three levels:

Level 1 (Motivated/Low Risk)

Level 2 (Vulnerable/Moderate Risk)

Level 3 (Critical; High Risk)

Use Data to Monitor Practices

Tier

Three

Tier Two

Tier One

Academic Social

Emotional

Mental

Health

Physical

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

180

160

140

What Services are Delivered

# of Services

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Initially Focus on Tier One

# of Level 1 Services by Month

# of Services

PBIS Problem Solving Logic used by

CCSD for School-based Social Workers

1. Establish Ground Rules

2. Start with Data

3. Match Practices to Data

4. Align Resources to Implement Practices

Lewis, PBIS Missouri

Common Trends

From Illinois and Pennsylvania adopted in Charleston, SC

Moving from reactive to preventative

Time efficient and least restrictive

Moving from Tier 1 to leading Tier 2/3

Facilitating Tier 3 Interventions

Serving students needs vs. “labeled” populations

Systems approach

Intervention vs. Referral to Professional

Download