Activity status
Activity window 07/01/26–07/30/26 · led by Deveau Burr Group (DBG), with Santa Clara County Office of Education clinical staff and Breaking Barriers California support, IMPACTER Pathway in a supporting role · session cadence and count TK — confirm with Allison/DBG before this page cites a specific number of sessions held.
A literature review can tell BHPM what other systems have measured. It cannot tell BHPM what the six people running behavioral health support at a specific school actually think is worth counting, or where their district's own paperwork already tracks something the Commission's framework has a different name for. That is what Activity 2.2 is for. Where Activity 2.1 built the evidence base from the outside, Activity 2.2 goes into the room with the people doing the work and asks them directly, then does the unglamorous translation work of lining up what they already track against the four categories the Commission needs reported.
Who's in the room
DBG convenes structured sessions with four groups, drawing on SCCOE clinical staff and Breaking Barriers California to bring both a county behavioral health perspective and a community-partner perspective into the same conversation rather than collecting them separately:
- County behavioral health department staff — the clinical and administrative side of how BHSSA-funded services actually get delivered and billed.
- LEA behavioral health leads — the people accountable for a district's program end to end.
- Counselors and site administrators — the school-level staff closest to a student's actual support pathway, and the first to know when a measure everyone agreed on upstream doesn't hold up in practice.
- BHSSA grantees — the broader set of grant-funded partners whose work the indicator set also has to account for.
Two things these sessions produce
Meaningful process and outcome measures, named by the people who'd have to report them. A measure a district's own staff can explain, defend, and actually collect without a new system is worth more than one that only looks clean in a literature review. These sessions are where a candidate indicator gets tested against that standard before it earns a place in the Activity 2.3 crosswalk table.
Crosswalk consultations that map each LEA's existing local framework onto the Commission's four reporting domains. Every district already tracks something — a referral log, a caseload roster, a completion count — in its own language, built for its own workflow, long before BHPM asked it to report against services provided; student demographics and characteristics, referred to on this site as Students Served; service utilization; and outcomes and impact. The consultation's job is not to replace that local language. It is to find where each local term already lands inside the Commission's four categories, and to be honest when one local measure genuinely straddles two of them rather than forcing a single tidy answer.
How a crosswalk consultation maps one LEA’s own terms onto the four Commission domains — illustrative pattern, not a specific LEA’s framework
That splitting is not an edge case to engineer around. An attendance and discipline log is a good example: it describes who is affected, which belongs in Students Served, and it also functions as an outcome covariate, which belongs in Outcomes & Impact — the same dual role S4's discussion of contextual indicators names for exactly this kind of measure. A crosswalk consultation that forced every local term into exactly one domain would be tidier to publish and less honest about what the underlying data actually does.
Key Takeaway
An indicator earns its place in the S4 candidate indicator table, and in the Index Methodology page's domain sub-index structure, because a crosswalk consultation traced it back to something an LEA already reports — not because it read well in the literature. The Index Methodology page's weighting exercise runs on that same structured consultation format: DBG-facilitated, per-domain, participants named and the process documented, which is what makes the weighting exercise defensible. Any indicator that reaches the S4 table without a traceable Activity 2.2 session behind it is provisional until that traceability exists. And a measure that genuinely straddles two Commission domains, like the attendance and discipline log above, stays mapped to both rather than getting resolved into a single domain for the sake of a cleaner table.
What's still open
The crosswalk sessions and the measures-identification sessions ran within the 07/01/26–07/30/26 window per the Implementation Workplan Crosswalk, but this page does not yet have DBG's session log to cite a specific count, cadence, or per-LEA breakdown — that detail is TK, confirm with Allison/DBG, and this page should update with the real figures once they're in hand rather than estimate them. The full list of local framework terms actually surfaced in these sessions, LEA by LEA, also has not been handed off yet; the diagram above illustrates the mapping pattern these consultations use, not a transcript of what any specific district's staff said in the room.
