Draft status
Deliverable 2a · draft for LEA structured review · Activity 2.5, 08/01/26–08/29/26 · becomes Deliverable 2b only after Activity 2.6 review and Commission revision.
BHPM answers the question it exists to answer for the Commission: what does a school behavioral health performance management system count, and how is it reported. It proposes an indicator set, organizes that set under the Commission's four reporting domains, and names the one composite score BHPM reports as its flagship outcome measure — the Behavioral Health Performance Index.
Nothing in this document is a finished specification. It synthesizes four completed activities — the S1–S7 literature review (Activity 2.1), DBG's stakeholder engagement sessions with the six LEAs and county behavioral health staff (Activity 2.2), the domain-alignment work sorting indicators into the Commission's taxonomy (Activity 2.3), and the BHPI index methodology (Activity 2.4) — into one working draft. Every indicator below carries a definition, a data source, a cadence, and a citation back to the S1–S7 evidence base; click any row for the full detail and its sources. Where a cadence or data-sharing dependency is not yet confirmed, the table says so plainly rather than filling the cell with a number nobody has agreed to.
How the indicator set was identified
The Commission's later Final Report deliverable will ask this Brief a direct question: not just which indicators BHPM proposes, but a description of how they were identified. That is not a rhetorical requirement this page can satisfy with a sentence — it is five linked activities, each with its own page on this site, synthesized here rather than replaced by this synthesis.
How the indicator set was identified — five linked activities, not one document written from a blank page
The Literature Review
Stakeholder Engagement
Domain Alignment
Define the BHPI
This Brief
The Literature Review
Seven-section review of the peer-reviewed and technical literature grounding BHPM's indicator set — screeners, MTSS process/outcome indicators, and composite-index construction — producing the annotated bibliography and the candidate indicator table on S4.
Start reading → Section 1 →Stakeholder Engagement
Structured sessions with county behavioral health staff, LEA behavioral health leads, counselors, site administrators, and BHSSA grantees, testing candidate indicators against what the people who'd actually report them track — plus the crosswalk consultations mapping each LEA's existing framework onto the Commission's four domains.
Stakeholder engagement →Domain Alignment
Sorts the resulting candidate indicator set into the Commission's four reporting domains — services provided, students served, service utilization, outcomes and impact — as the domain-alignment diagram and table.
Domain alignment diagram → Section 4 →Define the BHPI
The one composite score built from the aligned indicator set — the real weighted formula, the missing-data renormalization rule, and the four performance bands, reported inside Domain 4, Outcomes & Impact.
BHPI formula & methodology →This Brief
Where Activities 2.1–2.4 synthesize into one working draft — the indicator set, the alignment framing, the BHPI, and this page's privacy and data-governance assessment — for Activity 2.6 LEA structured review.
You are hereLiterature review (Activity 2.1) built the evidence base from published research first, before any indicator was proposed to a single stakeholder. Stakeholder engagement (Activity 2.2) then tested that candidate set against the people who would actually report it, and ran the crosswalk consultations mapping each LEA's own local framework onto the Commission's four domains — including the split-mapping pattern the Stakeholder Engagement page's crosswalk diagram documents for a measure like an attendance and discipline log, which describes who is affected and also functions as an outcome covariate at once. Domain alignment (Activity 2.3) sorted the resulting set into the Commission's four reporting domains. The Behavioral Health Performance Index (Activity 2.4) defined the one composite score built from that aligned set. This page, Activity 2.5, is where all four synthesize into one working draft, and Activity 2.6 is where SCCOE runs LEA structured review of it before it becomes Deliverable 2b.
The proposed indicator set, by domain
Thirteen candidate indicators, the same working set the Activity 2.3 domain-alignment diagram sorts, read here through the Brief's own questions: what is it, where does the number come from, how often does it refresh, and can BHPM actually produce it today. "Students Served" below is the working shorthand for the crosswalk's formal domain name, student demographics and characteristics.
Services Provided
4 indicators — click a row for full detail and citations
| Indicator | Definition | Data source | Cadence | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screening administration completion rate | Share of enrolled, eligible students who completed a behavioral health screening administration. | Platform-logged automatically. | Per reporting window, per school. | High — captured automatically by the platform; no manual entry. |
| Implementation fidelity score (TFI-aligned) | A site's implementation fidelity, scored against the Tiered Fidelity Inventory across Tier 1-3 practices. | Trained site coordinator scoring, TFI or TFI-aligned local check. | TK — periodic; exact administration cadence not yet fixed, confirm with Activity 2.6. | Moderate — requires a trained local scorer and a fixed administration cadence. |
| Staff and educator training participation rate | Share of the site staff roster who completed BHPM onboarding and technical-assistance modules. | Existing TTA delivery tracking. | TK — confirm reporting cadence with DBG / Activity 2.6. | High — logged through existing TTA delivery tracking. |
| Data-review cycle completion | Whether a site is holding its scheduled behavioral health data-review meetings. | Meeting count against the site's D1 implementation plan calendar. | Set per site's own D1 implementation plan — not yet standardized across the six LEAs. | High once a site's review calendar is established in D1. |
Students Served
(Student demographics & characteristics)3 indicators — click a row for full detail and citations
| Indicator | Definition | Data source | Cadence | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screened population profile (grade band, language, program status) | Demographic composition — grade band, language, program status — of the students who were screened. | Enrollment/roster feeds, cross-tabulated against screening completion. | TK — aligns to each screening administration window; exact reporting cadence not yet confirmed. | High — fields already reside in roster feeds. |
| Baseline tier and need-level distribution | Count of students at each MTSS tier as of first screening administration, by school. | Screening administration records. | One-time baseline, at first screening administration. | High. |
| English learner and IEP/504 status cross-tab on screening participation | Screening participation rate broken out by English learner and IEP/504 status. | Roster fields cross-tabulated with screening records — depends on the site's data-sharing agreement covering those fields. | TK — aligns to screening cadence; not yet independently specified. | Moderate — depends on the site's data-sharing agreement covering those fields. |
Service Utilization
3 indicators — click a row for full detail and citations
| Indicator | Definition | Data source | Cadence | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Referral-to-service rate | Share of screened students referred for behavioral health service, tracked to service entry where data-sharing allows. | Referral tracking, matched to provider records where a data-sharing agreement exists. | TK — depends on district-provider data-sharing agreements. | Moderate — depends on district-provider data-sharing agreements. |
| Billable screening encounters (CPT 96127) | Count of standardized-instrument screening encounters coded and documented for reimbursement. | Site billing system, CPT 96127. | TK — per billing cycle; not yet confirmed site by site. | High where a site's billing infrastructure already supports the code; low where none exists yet. |
| School-linked provider network utilization | Count and rate of behavioral health encounters reimbursed under the DHCS statewide fee schedule. | DHCS CYBHI Fee Schedule Program billing data, at CYBHI-enrolled sites. | TK — depends on the district's CYBHI cohort enrollment status. | Depends on the district's CYBHI cohort enrollment status. |
Outcomes & Impact
3 indicators — click a row for full detail and citations
| Indicator | Definition | Data source | Cadence | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier movement over time | Change in a student's MTSS tier placement between baseline and a later screening, aggregated to school level. | Screening administration records, baseline vs. follow-up, with small-cell suppression applied. | Each subsequent screening window. | High once two screening administrations exist. |
| Exclusionary discipline rate (suspensions and expulsions) | Suspension and expulsion rate, cross-referenced against BHPM tier and fidelity data. | District SIS discipline records, already collected for state reporting. | Aligned to the district's existing state discipline-reporting cycle (not independently specified here). | High — already collected for state reporting. |
| Domain-level growth on measured competencies | Within-student change in scored competency-attribute levels across successive administrations. | IMPACTER scoring pipeline output. | Recalculated at each administration. | High — computed automatically by the scoring pipeline. |
Two domains carry most of the feasibility risk worth naming up front. Service Utilization depends the most on infrastructure outside BHPM's own platform — a district's CYBHI cohort enrollment status, its billing system's support for CPT 96127, or a provider data-sharing agreement — so its indicators appear as reporting categories with a feasibility flag, not as promised figures every site will have from day one. Students Served carries the indicator set's disaggregation obligation: the one independent randomized trial in this literature found its real effects concentrated entirely inside a highest-need subgroup, invisible in a school-wide average, which is why demographic and need-tier breakdowns are written into the indicator set itself rather than added later as an equity appendix.
Aligning the indicator set: statutory goals, CYBHI billing, and LEA frameworks
Naming thirteen indicators is not, on its own, what Activity 2.5 is required to deliver. Each one also has to line up with three separate things at once: the reason a Commission exists to hold this deliverable accountable, the billing infrastructure some sites already run through, and the language an individual LEA staffer actually uses. Those three don't collapse into a single column on the table above without losing something true about at least one of them, so this Brief keeps them separate here instead.
Every indicator in this Brief operates under the Behavioral Health Student Services Act and reports to the Commission under Contract No. 25BHSOAC019 — the authorizing relationship named on this page's closing line. A goal-by-goal statutory citation for each indicator is Activity 2.6 review work, not yet complete.
2 of 3 Service Utilization indicators tie directly to California's CYBHI fee schedule — billable screening encounters and provider-network utilization. Each carries the same feasibility flag: real where a site's CYBHI cohort status and billing infrastructure already support it.
Activity 2.2's crosswalk consultation, not a separate exercise. Every indicator above earns its place because a consultation traced it back to something an LEA already tracks in its own language — including the split-mapping pattern for a measure that lands in more than one Commission domain at once.
The Behavioral Health Performance Index
Domain 4, Outcomes and Impact, carries BHPM's flagship score. The full construction rationale — normalization, weighting, aggregation, banding, and disclosure rules under the OECD/JRC composite-construction framework — lives on the Index Methodology page. The working formula, performance bands, and the Wellness Index layer beneath it appear here because thirteen indicators mean little without the one composite score built from them.
Activity 2.4 · reported inside Domain 4 — Outcomes & Impact
The Behavioral Health Performance Index
BHPI is Domain 4's flagship outcome metric, not a fifth index competing with the Commission's four reporting domains. Domains 1–3 (services provided, students served, service utilization) are the input and context reporting categories; this is where the outcome gets reported.
BHPI = 0.40(Voice) + 0.20(Behavior) + 0.16(Engagement) + 0.12(Academic) + 0.12(Service Receipt)
Five components, by weight
- Voice · 40% — Weighted heaviest because authentic student-voice evidence — what a student actually says, in their own words — is the differentiating signal no other state behavioral-health instrument collects.
- Behavior · 20% — Second-heaviest because suspension, expulsion, and referral data is the highest-stakes signal already sitting in a district's own student information system.
- Engagement · 16% — Attendance is a strong, well-established wellbeing signal — present, but weighted below Voice and Behavior rather than treated as equally decisive.
- Academic · 12% — Lightest by design: academic performance is context for behavioral health, not a driver of it, so it contributes without dominating the composite.
- Service Receipt · 12% — Closes the loop between what was delivered and what it produced. Optional and renormalizing — a site without service-receipt data yet is not penalized for it.
Missing-data renormalization — If a site is missing data for one of the five dimensions, that dimension is excluded and the remaining weights scale up proportionally so they still sum to 1.0 — a site is never penalized for a data gap, it is scored on what it has actually reported.
Performance bands
The layer beneath Voice
Student-level Wellness Index (.250–1.000)
BHPI's Voice dimension is built from a separate, student-level Wellness Index that routes each student to a support tier (Tier 1 universal · Tier 2 targeted · Tier 3 intensive), scored across six BHPM-specific competencies:
These six competencies were developed specifically for BHPM, co-developed with the San Diego County Office of Education — a distinct, BHPM-specific set, not the general IMPACTER 8 competency model used elsewhere on the platform.
4-of-6 rule — Every student needs at least 4 of the 6 competencies reported to receive a Wellness Index score. If one or two are unreported, the index renormalizes across the remaining reported competencies — the same proportional-scaling logic BHPI itself uses at the site level.
Indicator count per domain
Working indicator count per domain
13 candidate indicators total, sorted the same way the Activity 2.3 diagram sorts them. This is a count of the current working set, not a target and not a cap — the Activity 2.6 LEA review can add, cut, or reassign any row before this becomes the 2b final.
The count is uneven by design, not by omission. Services Provided carries the most indicators of the four right now because it's the domain BHPM's own platform already logs directly — screening, fidelity, and training activity with no manual entry. Students Served, Service Utilization, and Outcomes and Impact sit tied at three apiece, and Service Utilization is the domain most worth watching: its three indicators carry the heaviest feasibility caveats on the table above, since each one waits on billing or data-sharing infrastructure some sites don't have yet. That gap is a fair target for the Activity 2.6 review to close as more sites clear their CYBHI and billing readiness bar.
Privacy, Security & Data Governance
This is a named Commission requirement for Activity 2.5, not a courtesy inclusion: this section assesses the privacy and security implications of the data BHPM proposes to collect — its sources, its flows, its collection methods — and establishes data governance processes that give explicit operational guidance to everyone handling it. Nothing below is a new policy invented for this page; it is the architecture this site and the RFP's own D1 recruitment and participation-agreement activities already establish, organized under the three categories the Commission's own requirement names.
- Open-language screener responses, scored against the six-domain competency architecture named on the Stakeholder Engagement page.
- SIS roster, attendance, and discipline feeds — the same feeds behind BHPI’s Behavior (20%) and Engagement (16%) components.
- Billing and provider records where a site’s data-sharing agreement supports it — CYBHI/CPT 96127 encounters and provider-network utilization.
- Site-level SIS and screener records aggregate to school- and district-level reporting only. No public BHPM figure is student-level.
- Any cell falling below the minimum reporting-group threshold is suppressed before publication, not estimated or rounded — the same rule the Index Methodology page states for BHPI, with complementary suppression across related cells to prevent disclosure by subtraction.
- Screening administrations at each site’s own administration window, logged automatically by the platform — cadence is set per site’s own D1 implementation-plan calendar and not yet standardized across the six LEAs.
- Periodic SIS data pulls for roster, attendance, and discipline cross-tabs, gated site by site on that site’s own data-sharing agreement — the same dependency several rows in the indicator set above already carry as a feasibility note.
The governance layer underneath this Brief
None of the data sources above reach this Brief without an agreement layer established first. Formal LEA participation agreements — Deliverable 1, Recruitment Outcomes Summary — establish data governance, roles, and limitations for each of the six LEAs before a site’s data ever flows into the indicator set above. Activity 1.1 names privacy and data-security review, including coordination with legal counsel where needed to review data-sharing agreements, as up-front recruitment work; Activity 1.2 (executing the six formal participation agreements and completing school selection for all 18 sites) is what puts data governance, roles, and limitations in writing with each partner before engagement — not something bolted on after the fact. SCCOE’s Data Privacy & Compliance Coordinator oversees FERPA, HIPAA, and California-NDPA compliance across all eighteen sites and executes the data-sharing agreements this Brief’s own indicator table already flags as a feasibility dependency in several rows.
This site publishes no student-level data. All figures are aggregate, de-identified, and reviewed under FERPA, COPPA, and California student privacy law (AB 1584 / SOPIPA).
Next Steps
Activity 2.6 runs LEA structured review with all six LEA teams. That review finalizes the open cadence and data-source questions flagged in the table above and confirms BHPI's weighting, banding, and sensitivity analysis. The result is Deliverable 2b, the final Brief submitted to the Commission.
Prepared for the California Behavioral Health Services Oversight & Accountability Commission (BHSOAC) under the Behavioral Health Student Services Act (BHSSA), Contract No. 25BHSOAC019. Santa Clara County Office of Education (administering) · Impacter Pathway · Stanford Medicine · Applied Survey Research · Breaking Barriers California.
