School and Community Collaboration for an
Effective Service Delivery System
Sandra Keenan
Director, Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice
American Institutes for Research
Washington, DC
October 31, 2008
Objectives—Participants will learn:

An overview of school based mental health models nationally that are
implementing multiple approaches including PBIS, Safe Schools/Healthy
Students and systems of care

Data on improved school and child outcomes from integrated initiatives

Challenges for partnerships between mental health systems and schools and
strategies for overcoming these challenges

designing and building sustainable coalitions that support the social,
emotional and behavioral supports among multiple systems

Strategies for involving families as partner with schools and mental health
systems


Community-specific examples and strategies used to develop partnerships
between schools and mental health systems to implement a continuum of
school-based mental health services
An integration framework for communities to implement multiple strategies
for school-based mental health services
WHAT WE KNOW:
To improve the academic success of our children, we must
also improve their social success.
Academic and social failures are directly related.
What is the level of need for behavioral and emotional support
within our schools and communities?



Approximately 20% of our youth exhibit
complex problems; 10% have a serious
emotional disorder
Only 2% of school age children are
identified with serious emotional
disorders under special education.
Fewer that 1 in 4 students with significant
emotional and behavioral needs are
receiving minimally adequate treatment,
both in school and the
community(Surgeon General’s Report,
2000)
Children and Youth with Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders
(2% nationally are identified IEP)







Get lower grades 
Fail more courses
and exams
Are held back

more often
Graduate at lower
rates
55% drop out rate
Have blame placed
on family
move from
program to
program
Get arrested more
often; almost 50%
/1 year and within 5
yrs. over 60%
Spend more time in
the juvenile justice
system
Are more frequently
placed in restrictive
educational
environments
Aspects of School Culture




Time/Day/Month/Year
Personnel
Domain/classroom/school/bus/playg
round
Context of service delivery….
food/exercise/instruction/transportation/health
services/legal/college planning/social
network/behavior/rules…..
Most prevalent school discipline
problems:










Class disruption
noncompliance
bullying and harassment
fighting/physical aggression
truancy
vandalism
theft
alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use
dropout
suicide
Understanding issues that might relate to behavior (Schools
may see this as all one thing…..inappropriate behavior to be
dealt with as a discipline issues….)









Developmental
Environmental
History of reinforcement
Related to medical condition
Related to a mental health condition
Cultural(active as well as reactive)
Related to side effects of medication
Related to another disability, such as LD, or
Language processing difficulty
Type of instruction and curriculum
TYPICAL SCHOOL
Juvenile Court
PUPIL SERVICES
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST
SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK
Alternative
Schools
HEALTH SERVICES
SCHOOL SECURITY
*Police
Administration
* Violence
Prevention
HIGH SCHOOL
*Medicaid
*Teen Mother
Counseling
*Pregnancy
Prevention
*College *Class Schedule
Physical/Health Education
*Child Abuse/Neglect Prevention
Adapted from slide by of National Resource Center for Safe Schools
Based upon Dwyer, 1994
*Drug/Alcohol and
Mental Health Services
SCHOOL COUNSELORS
Teachers and
Staff
SOCIAL SERVICES
*SSI
SCHOOL NURSE
*STD/Pregnancy Prevention
*Special Education
*Drug & Alcohol
Prevention Program
Counseling
Juvenile
Services
*Mentors
WHAT’S MISSING?
•
•
•
INTERNAL SCHOOL TEAM COORDINATION
TEACHER TRAINING/CONSULTATION
POSTIVE BEHAVIORAL SUPPORTS
•
•
SOCIAL SKILL INSTRUCTION
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
•
•
•
•
INTEGRATED SERVICE COORDINATION
FAMILY CENTERED SYSTEM
SUPPORT FOR PARENT SKILL & INVOLVEMENT
COLLABORATION
School Mental Health Services in US
2002-2003





Study was conducted of 83,000
schools
1/5 of students received some
mental health services
Major providers in schools= nurses,
counselors, school psychologists and
social workers
School nurses spent 1/3 time
providing MH services
80% of schools provided MH
services, but not part of a formal
network of support
School Mental Health Services in US


Most difficult service to deliver:
family support services
Most successful strategy:
developing positive formal and
informal relationships with
community partners
WHAT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR
COLLABORATION AND
PARTNERSHIP!
National Evaluation Findings:
Education Outcomes of
Children/Youth with Mental Health
Needs Served in Systems of Care
Slides provided by :
Sylvia Fisher, Ph.D.
Program Director of Evaluation
Child, Adolescent and Family Branch
Center for Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Brigitte Manteuffel, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, CMHI National Evaluation
Macro International Inc.
System of Care Communities of the Comprehensive Community Mental
Health Services for Children and Their Families Program
Funded by the Center for Mental Health Services of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA)
Passamaquoddy Tribe, ME
Maine (3 counties)
New Hampshire (3 regions)
Vermont 1 (statewide)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, MI Vermont 2 (statewide)
King County, WA
Maine (4 counties)
Worcester County, MA
Minnesota
Blackfeet Tribe, MT
Worcester, MA
Clark County, WA
Bismarck,
(6 counties)
Rhode Island 1 (statewide)
Fargo, & Minot,
Montana & Crow Nation
Rhode Island 2 (statewide)
Multnomah County, OR
Albany
ND
Mid-Columbia Region
Minnesota
Monroe
Rhode Island 3 (statewide)
Wisconsin
County, NY
(4 counties), OR
County, NY
Sacred Child Project, ND (4 counties) (6 counties)
Bridgeport, CT
Clackamas County, OR
Southeastern Connecticut
Ingham
Erie County,
Westchester County, NY
Lane County, OR
County, MI
Willmar, MN
New York, NY
NY
Oglalla Sioux
Idaho
Detroit, MI
Yankton
Mott Haven, NY
Kalamazoo County, MI
Tribe, SD
Northern Arapaho
Burlington
County, NJ
Cuyahoga
Sioux Tribe,
Iowa
Tribe, WY
South Philadelphia, PA
Milwaukee, WI
County, OH
SD
(10 counties)
United Indian Health Service, CA
Allegheny County 1, PA
Chicago, IL
McHenry County, IL
Lake County, IN
Allegheny County 2, PA
Lyons, Riverside, & Proviso, IL
Nebraska
Wyoming (statewide)
Beaver County, PA
Southern
Consortium
(22 counties)
Glenn County, CA
Delaware
(statewide)
Butte County, CA
Marion County, IN
& Stark County, OH
Montgomery County, MD
Placer County, CA
Baltimore,
MD
Alexandria,
VA
St. Joseph, MO
Napa & Sonoma Counties, CA
Denver area, CO Lancaster County, NE
Washington, DC
Charleston, WV
St. Louis, MO
Rural Frontier, UT
Northern Kentucky
Sacramento County, CA
Southeastern
Contra Costa County, CA
Edgecombe, Nash, & Pitt Counties, NC
Eastern Kentucky
Kansas St. Charles County, MO
San Francisco, CA
Colorado (4 counties)
Urban Trails, Oakland, CA
North Carolina (11 counties)
Sedgwick
Clark County, NV
North Carolina (11 counties)
Nashville, TN
County, KS
Monterey, CA
Southwest Missouri
Mecklenburg County, NC
California 5 (Riverside, San Mateo, Santa
Navajo Nation
South Carolina (3 counties & Catawba Nation)
Maury County, TN
Oklahoma (5 counties) Mississippi River
Cruz, Solano, & Ventura Counties)
Greenwood, SC
Delta area, AR
Santa Barbara County, CA
California Rural Indian
Birmingham, AL
Charleston, SC
Health Board, Inc., CA
Los Angeles County, CA
Gwinnett & Rockdale
Choctaw Nation, OK
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, AZ
Counties, GA
San Diego County, CA
Hinds County, MS
Las
Cruces,
NM
Pima County, AZ
Ft. Worth, TX
Mississippi
(3 counties)
El Paso County, TX
Travis County, TX
Harris County, TX
Hillsborough County, FL
Southeastern Louisiana
Sarasota County, FL
West Palm Beach, FL
Broward County, FL
Funded Communities
Fairbanks Native
Association, AK
Wai'anae &
Leeward, HI
Date
Guam
Honolulu, HI
Yukon Kuskokwim
Delta Region, AK
Puerto Rico
1993–1994
1997–1998
1999–2000
2002–2004
2005–2006
Number
22
23
22
29
30
Value-Driven Systems Change
Family
Driven
Youth
Guided
Individualized
Least
Restrictive
Community
Based
System-of-Care
Principles
Accessible
Culturally &
Linguistically
Competent
Interagency
Collaborative
&
Coordinated
Collaboration Supports Mental Health Needs of Children/Youth
and their Families



Schools actively
refer children/ youth
to systems of care
Partnerships grow
across grant years
Note: 2005-2006
grantees serve
more children
below age 6; 7
sites only serve
only young
children.
Other includes physical health, substance abuse clinics, family court, early care, among others.
Some School Characteristics of Children/Youth Entering
Systems of Care


95% attended school in past 6 months
85% are in regular public school, 15% in
alternative/special school, 7.5% in 24-hour restrictive
school setting, etc.

About 20% were absent 2 or more days per week

About 22% were failing 2 or more classes

39% had been suspended from school in past 6
months
Children and Youth Entering Systems of
Care: IEPs and Special Education



Nearly half have an IEP
Most have IEPs for behavioral/emotional problems,
among other reasons (see below)
45% of caregivers reported child/youth receipt of
special education services
GOOD NEWS…Youth in Systems of Care are Doing
Better



Regular School
Attendance (> 80% of
the time) increased from
74% to 81% in 6
months
Absences due to
behavioral and
emotional problems
were reduced by 1/5 in
18 months
31% more youth
achieved passing grades
after 18 months
Note: Findings are for youth aged 14-18 years
Changes in School Attendance and Performance 30 Months
After Entering Systems of Care (all children and youth)
Attendance
Improved
Remained Stable
Performance
Improved
Worsened
Remained Stable
Worsened
25.5%
30.4%
44.8%
47.4%
29.7%
22.1%
School Attendance[b]
(n = 447)
School Performance[c]
(n = 357)
Fewer Disciplinary Problems
Youth Ages 14 – 18 Years

Suspensions &
expulsions were
reduced by 1/5 in
first 6 months
and by 44% in 18
months
Improved Youth (Aged 14-18 Years) Behavior and
Emotional Health

Behavioral and emotional problems
decreased (35% improved at 6 months, 48% at
18 months)



Youth involvement with juvenile justice
decreased (e.g., arrests fell by 60% at 18
months)
Youth became less depressed and less
anxious
Youth suicide attempts were reduced by
half in 6 months
Mental health consumers/youth/families are not
in the mental health system – they are in the “de
facto system”- schools




Over 52 million children in ~ 100,000 schools in
U.S.; 6 million adults working in the schools: 1/5 of
U.S. population
Children receive more MH services through schools
than any other public system
Student support services/school health programs
need greater focus in health and education policy
initiatives
Must serve ALL children….. so they can learn in
schools.
(MODELS)
Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, Systems of
Care identified six practices integral to success, regarding the
use of personnel and service delivery systems:

The use of school-based and school-focused Wraparound
services to support learning and transition.

The use of school-based case management.

The use of clinicians or other student-support providers in
the schools to work with students, their families, and all
members of the school community, including teachers and
administrators.

The provision of schoolwide prevention and early intervention
programs

The creation of “centers” within the school to provide support
to children and youth with emotional and behavioral needs
and their families.

The use of family liaisons or advocates to strengthen the role
and empowerment of family members in their children’s
education
How do these school based mental
health models integrate with promotion
and prevention models?
3 tiered model of promotion and prevention
such as PBS….
Examine what we do for ALL
Examine what we do for SOME
Examine what we do for a FEW
MODEL OF POSITIVE
BEHAVIORAL SUPPORTS
High-Risk Students
Individual Interventions
Intensive
Level (FEW)
1-5%
Targeted Level
(SOME)
5-10%
All Students
School-wide Systems
of Support
Universal Level( ALL)
80-90%
At-Risk Students
Classroom/Small Group
Strategies
What SW-PBS is…

Evidenced based practices imbedded
in a systems change process

A prevention continuum

A framework for organizing mental
health supports and services

Not only “school-wide” but in
churches, and community
Critical Features of SW-PBS ….

Team driven process

Instruction of behaviors/social skills

Data-based decision-making

Instruction linked to evaluation

Defines social culture of the school
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
1-5%
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Individual or Group
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Values and commitment to
What is necessary to teach
Child to read……
1-5%
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Individual or Group
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Is there a value and
Commitment to do what is
Needed to have child in school
Current Implementation
School-wide Positive Behavior Support
7,009 schools in 44 states: 152 PreK;
4231 K-6; 1564 6-9; 739 9-12; 324 Alt
and JJ settings
Team
 Coach
 Curriculum emphasizing prevention, teaching,
behavioral function
 On-going data collection and use of data for
active decision-making

Instructional Approach

Focus on teaching social behavior like academic
skills (direct instruction)

Emphasis on teaching & encouraging pro-social
behavior that competes with development &
displays of rule-violating behavior

Ensure effective instructional practices are
consistently used school-wide
General Approach to
School-wide Data





# referrals per day per month
# referrals by student
# referrals by location
#/kinds of problem behaviors
# problem behaviors by time of day
Show Results: PBIS
Bridgeport, CT Schools
Frequency of Incidents by Month
Number of Incidents
1500
1000
500
0
Total Incidents
Sep-04
Oct-04
Nov-04
Dec-04
Jan-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
May-05
Jun-05
241
754
1361
835
621
780
522
614
642
151
Stockton School
Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding
Standards on ISAT Scores
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
m ath
reading
2000-2001
w riting
2002-2003
Steuben School
Total OSS Per Year
250
200
150
100
50
0
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003
Steuben School
Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding
Standards on ISAT Scores
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
m ath
reading
2000-2001
2002-2003
w riting
What Does the Research on
PBIS Tell Us?





Increases in instructional time lost to behavioral
interferences
Increases in opportunities for academic
engagement and academic achievement
Increases prosocial behavior
Enhances school climate for students and adults
Increases the willingness and ability of
teachers to work with students with more
complex behavior needs
Adapted from Sugai and Horner, 2000
PBIS



Aligns schools with System of Care
values and reform efforts such as
RTI (Response to Intervention)
Changes the lens through which we
view our students and their families
“Strengths and Needs”
Creates a school culture and climate
where all staff take responsibility for
supporting positive student
behavior
PBIS also helps schools to





develop less-restrictive, but effective,
interventions (IDEA)
achieve improved student outcomes,
through partnerships with communitybased service providers such as mental
health
engage families in powerful partnerships
gain time for instruction, improve student
learning
fulfill legal mandates for disabled students
What does SOC and Education look
like in communities?
Answer is: different…as each
community.
However, over the last decade, “levels
of SOC acculturation have begun to
emerge”
Five levels of involvement for schools
with mental health:
1.the individual child and family;
2.small group support;
3. school wide support;
4.district wide support;
5. county or state initiatives
The first level begins with the individual child
and family. Through case management and the
family service coordinator, school representatives
have been included in team planning and follow-up
through the wraparound process. There is usually
one staff member from the school where the child
attends that becomes part of the process and
team.
Level 2 and 3


Level 2 addresses the needs of a group of
children or youth, such as group therapy
provided at the school, after school
programs, parent support groups or
mentoring.
Level 3 occurs through school wide
programs that support all children, such
as school wide positive behavioral
supports and interventions, social skill
classroom instruction, mental health
provider assigned to the pre-referral team
at the school or behavioral support
centers.
Level 4

The fourth level provides district
level support through
comprehensive programming with
support for referral, assessment,
various programs options, both in
school and in the community, family
supports and consistent case
management and follow-up.


Level 5 involves county or state initiatives that
maintain comprehensive training and technical
assistance structures, referral and assessment
centers and ongoing policy and funding
initiatives.
Throughout all these levels, a strategic
plan for the system of care development
includes an analysis of the overlap or
integration with the strategic plan of the
school district as well as the county or
state initiatives as well.
Building a System that Cares: The
PARK Project, Bridgeport, CT
Slides provided by the Park
Project
How did PARK build a school-based
system of care?
1.
Educate them on who we are and
what we do
2.
Align our vision and mission with
theirs
3.
Build synergy
4.
Show results
Who We Are: The PARK Project


Vision: Bridgeport children will live in a
safe, caring community that nourishes
the development of positive mental
health.
Mission: To build a system of care in
partnership with home, school and
community so that children with
behavioral and mental health challenges
can achieve success.
Who We Are: System of Care is Not…
 SOC
is not a school reform
initiative
 SOC is not a way to remove
unwanted students
 SOC is not a means of
isolating children with
mental health issues
Build Synergy: How Do “Outsiders”
Build Synergy With Schools?

Be a resource to them



Give Unconditional respect (cultural
competence)



What are there needs?
How can you help them?
Listen before you advise
Acknowledge their expertise in educating children
Focus on their successes rather than their
failures
Show Results: Build Youth Leadership
Show Results: PBIS
Frequency of Incidents by Month
Number of Incidents
1500
1000
500
0
Total Incidents
Sep-04
Oct-04
Nov-04
Dec-04
Jan-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
May-05
Jun-05
241
754
1361
835
621
780
522
614
642
151
Show Results: Wraparound, Care
Coordination & Family Advocacy
Statistically
Significant Results
•Overall decline in
rates of depression
•Decrease in the
number of somatic
complaints
•Decrease in the
number of caregiver
complaints
What is Needed to Merge Mental
Health and Schools?




Understand that schools have their own
culture
Understand that the process is mostly
about relationship building
It takes time: Remember to move along
gently
Know your bottom line and what you are
willing to give up
Contact Information




Phone: 203-337-4403
FAX:
203-334-1577
Web:
http://www.theparkproject.org
Address:
75 Washington Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Sustaining Collaborations with
the Public Schools
Slides provided by
Suzanne Hannigan
Project Director,
Communities of Care
City of Worcester and
Central Massachusetts
Worcester Communities of Care
Worcester Communities of Care (WCC) was the recipient
of a 1999 grant award.

The primary goal of Worcester Communities of Care was to
implement a system of care in the City of Worcester through
development of a comprehensive service delivery system
that was individualized and tailored to families’ specific
strengths and needs by the integrated efforts of all the
responsible child serving agencies.

WCC employed a wraparound intervention model, enrolling
families with youth, ages 8-15 (later ages 3-21) with SED,
who were at high risk of out-of-home placement, school
failure and court involvement in order to keep these youth in
their communities and with their families.
Development of Partnership with
Worcester Public Schools
Outside of the family the schools have tremendous
influence over the development of the child

Youth with SED:





fail more courses and get poorer grades
are retained and drop out more often
experience high levels of social difficulties with peers & adults
Parents of youth with SED are frequently involved in the school when
only when their youth are experiencing having problems
Parents of youth with SED and schools do not always not see each
other as allies
Worcester Communities of Care (WCC) and the Worcester
Public Schools (WPS) had found they had many shared
System of Care values
Challenges to
Building this Relationship
Parents and advocates had reported difficulties with:
Not feeling respected or listened to at meetings.
2.
Resources provided by the schools not meeting the individual
needs of their child with SED
3.
Feeling that they were blamed for all of the issues presented
by their children
4.
Lack of empathy around the struggles that parents have
raising youth with SED
The schools had reported challenges with the clinicians
providing mental health services in the schools:
1.
School-based MH providers decreased available "time in
learning trying to accommodate appointment times.
2.
MH providers did not understand the school culture
1.
Building Collaborative Relationships:
Why is this Important?
The Worcester Public Schools and Worcester
Communities of Care found:
 The needs of youth and families cross agency
mandates- “We were in this together.”
 Collaborative relationships provide opportunities to
work together in a more effective and efficient
manner
 There were opportunities to build on system
initiatives that were driving change.
Beginning Steps of the Worcester
Communities of Care/ Worcester Public
Schools initiative
The WCC/ WPS Initiative began in the fall 2001.
WCC Rationale for Collaboration with WPS:
WPS funding of the Emotional Support Program provided in-kind
match support for the WCC SOC project

Collaboration with WPS would enable WCC to increase knowledge
in the WPS around SOC values and principles
Challenge for WCC Collaboration with WPS:




WCC staff and family members concern that WCC would lose its’
ability to advocate for youth with SED in the WPS.
Technical Assistance from Sandy Keenan -an experiential
framework that served to dispel the fears of staff and families.
WCC began to adopt an advocacy approach that was informed by
the mandates of the school system and also utilized collaborative
problem-solving to meet the educational goals of the youth.
Development of a Letter of Intent
On 2/27/02 the Worcester School Department signed a Letter of
Intent with Worcester Communities of Care.
The Letter of Intent stated:
 WPS would pledge in-kind match to WCC through newly funded
school programs for children with SED Emotional Support
Programs (ESP).
 WCC and the WPS would develop a training program to meet the
needs of WPS staff around strength-based assessment and
planning to meet the need of families with youth with SED and
including those referred from the Emotional Support Programs
(ESP)
 WCC would enroll youth with SED referred by the WPS student
support staff who met the WCC eligibility requirements into a
2002 summer wraparound program.
Summer Wraparound
Summer of 2002 -WCC-Directed Wraparound : WPS school guidance
and adjustments counselors referred, students with histories of serious
emotional and behavioral issues who were at risk of losing ground
over the summer. WCC enrolled 48 students and their families
enrolled. WPS staff participated in the team meetings
WPS respondents to WCC post-summer program survey indicated
that: 44% of the enrolled youth had returned to school after the
summer were functioning n better than at the end of the school year
and 29% had had returned to school without deterioration in
functioning.
Summer of 2003- WCC-Guided Wraparound : WPS school guidance
and adjustments counselors were extensively trained by WCC in the
wraparound process. These WPS staff facilitated the team meetings
with on-site coaching from WCC staff.
Ongoing-WCC Training/ Coaching Contract with the WPS: Through
Safe Schools Healthy Students Grant and other funding the WPS has
entered into yearly contracts with WCC to provide training in
wraparound and strength-based work with families through 6/2008,
demonstrating commitment of WPS to SOC values and principles.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS):
•
September 2002, WCC-sponsored presentation by Lucille Eber for
managers of the Worcester Public Schools on and WCC on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) a school-wide
discipline and supports approach.
•
2003 WPS implementation of PBIS in host schools that were conducive
to SOC development.
•
WCC commitment to funding a WPS liaison to the PBIS effort through
the end of the SOC grant
•
PBIS liaison currently is also a trainer for PBIS in our 2nd Grant.
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
•
Continued commitment of WPS to the PBIS through 2008
•
WCC Project Director participation as a member of the School-Based
Mental Health Intake Committee
•
WCC provision of intensive care coordination to the WPS and other
community agencies for youth with SED and their families-he
Coordinated Family-Focused Care
Safe Schools Healthy Students
2003 WPS awarded Safe Schools/ Healthy Students:
•
WCC Project Director participation as a member of the School-Based
Mental Health Intake Committee
•
WCC Asst. Project Director participation as a member of the School
Safety Committee
•
WCC provision of intensive care coordination to the WPS and other
community agencies for youth with SED and their families-he
Coordinated Family-Focused Care
•
Community identification of services and supports for the WPS
Wraparound Teams, Year 3
1.
Parent/ Professional Advocacy League of MA, Worcester
Chapter
2.
Worcester Community Connections Coalition
3.
CommunityBuild
Maintaining Our Collaborative
Relationships
The Worcester Public Schools and Communities of
Care have continued to collaborate by:





Learning and respecting the mandates of each system
Being willing to listen and negotiate differences
Supporting new initiatives of each system and serving on
committees and workgroups when asked
Providing each system technical assistance and training
Joint advocacy for improved mental health service for youth
with Serious Emotional Disturbances
Strategies for Effective Partnerships






Identify key personnel who are “like-minded” to talk
with about collaborating (their roles will vary)
Ask what they need to meet current challenges – not
just what they can do for us
Listen to mandates and constraints facing schools and
other child serving agencies
Look for opportunities to build on system initiatives that
are driving change
Respect the expertise and experience the schools offer
and emphasize the experiential expertise of families
and teachers (no shame, no blame)
Use technical assistance, e.g. a school “cultural broker”
Maintaining Collaborative Relationships
with the Schools





Providing consultation and technical assistance to
the schools in areas of need as identified by
schools
Receiving consultations and technical assistance
from the schools
Supporting the development of local family and
youth organizations and community organizations
that are available to professionals as well as
families
Providing training that always includes parent and
professional trainers
Being willing to listen, learn, negotiate and
compromise
Lessons learned about collaboration
and partnership



You have heard how partnerships are formed
You have heard how collaborative efforts
begin and are nurtured
You have heard how they are funded and
sustained
Now let’s focus more on families and
youth…
Family / Youth Experiences Resulting From Negative Interactions with
“Systems” Can Create Challenges to Building Collaborative
Relationships









Not being respected or listened to at meetings
A history of promises not kept
“Cookie cutter” solutions that did not meet the
individual needs of their youth with SED
Having to fight for everything they got
Feeling blamed / judged for their child’s behavior
Feeling a lack of understanding / empathy for their
feelings / stress / worries
Feeling shame and embarrassment about their child’s
behavior
Feeling dependent on others for help and guidance
Never being included in any discussions (youth)
These can all happen despite our best intentions.
Shared Responsibility With Parents/Families/Youth





Collaboration with families/youth is central to improving
the outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral
needs
inherent expertise of a child and family to know their own
strengths
when a child and family help to come up with a solution,
they are more likely to buy in to the process.
relationships between a child and family and a care
provider are evolving to be more of a partnership
Traditional assessment has focused on deficits/locates the
problem within the child and/or family
Shared Responsibility With Parents/Families




Current assessments focus more on strengths and have
an ecological component that looks at how environmental
factors (e.g., what the teacher does, how the class is
organized, how the school is organized) sets the stage for
or reinforces problem behavior
Provider-driven care asks the question, “How can the
needs of this student be addressed within the context of
the available services?”
Family-driven care asks a much simpler question: “What
do we need to do to address the issues this student faces?”
Services are more individualized and tailored to the needs
of a child and family.
In family-driven care, the scope is larger/more people
bring their creative resources to the table, committed to
implementing lasting, real solutions.
Levels of Family/Youth Involvement
Policy and
decision-making
Families/youth supporting
other families/youth/ peer
to peer working in service
delivery, working as
trainers
Families/youth needing
services and
supports/Advocating for
your own child/self
……Time for your questions and
answers as well as some discussion
about what you have heard……
Activity for Participants
Now we are going to take a look at
organizational change…..and some
activities you can do to refine your
efforts of collaboration and
partnership with other systems.
Focus of Change
System level
Focus of
Systems
Reform
Organizational
level
Direct Service
Focus of
Evidence
Based
Services
Focus of Change
System level
Organizational
level
Direct Service
Systems Integration and
Strategic Planning
Resource Mapping: a methodology used to link
community resources with an agreed upon vision,
organizational goals, strategies, or expected
outcomes.
1.
Mapping strategies focus on what is already present in the
community; build on the strengths within a community.
2.
Mapping is relationship-driven. Key to mapping efforts is the
development of partnerships--a group of equals with a common
interest working together over a sustained period of time to
accomplish common goals.
3.
Mapping embraces the notion that to realize vision and meet
goals, a community may have to work across programmatic and
geographic boundaries.
PEOPLE
IDEAS
EFFECTIVE PRACTICES
EXPERTISE
AUTHORITY
ENDORSEMENT
ACCESS
TIME
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
SPACE
MACHINERY
TRANSPORTATION
OTHER GOODS/SERVICES
Resource Mapping
Phase 1
MONEY
DIRECT FUNDING
RESTRICTED FUNDING
MATCHING FUNDS
LEVERAGED FUNDS
NEW GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
Prevention Model:
A Framework for Resource Mapping
for a few
children?
…have in place
for some
children?
What supports and
resources do we have in
place for all children?
Where are the overlapping goals, values and outcomes?
These become the foundation for your strategic plan for
sustainability……..
RESOURCES: TA Centers & Websites





National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth
Violence Prevention (website and link to technical
partners)—www.promoteprevent.org
 http://www.promoteprevent.org/about/partners/default
.asp
Safe Schools/ Healthy Students Communications Team—
1.800.790.2647; www.sshscom.org; TA@sshscom.org
Center for Effective Collaboration & Practice—
www.air.org/cecp
National Coordinator Training and Technical Assistance
Center—www.k12coordinator.org
Technical Assistance Partnership for Child & Family Mental
Health—www.air.org/tapartnership
RESOURCES: MATERIALS



Teaching and Working with Children with
Emotional and Behavioral Challenges (Sopris
West)
Addressing Student Problem Behavior (Parts
1, 2, 3) (CECP; Forthcoming, Sopris West)
“Enhancing Collaborations Within and Across
Disciplines to Advance Mental Health Programs” in
Schools in School Mental Health Handbook. (107-118).
New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing Company.
RESOURCES: MATERIALS





Safe, Supportive and Successful Schools
Step by Step (Sopris West)
Every Child Learning: Safe & Supportive
Schools (Learning First Alliance)
Safe & Sound (CASEL)
Safe, Drug Free, and Effective Schools: What
Works! (www.air.org/cecp)
The Role of Education in a System of Care:
Effectively Serving Children with Emotional
or Behavioral Disorders (www.air.org/cecp)