07 · Launch Supports
Anticipated Implementation Supports At Project Launch
Seven categories of support, drawn from the conditions recorded across all eighteen site readiness assessments and from the executed agreement record. These feed directly into Deliverable 3, the Training and Technical Assistance Plan.
| Support | What It Involves | Where It Lands |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Governance And Access Configuration Immediate | The agreement sets are executed at all six LEAs and no site is waiting on paper. What the launch needs from the agreements is configuration: role-scoped dashboard access set per site, explicit cross-site access for staff who work across two campuses, and coverage applied to both CDS-coded entities on the Ida Jew Academy and Valle Vista campus. | All six LEAs |
| 2 · Technical Configuration Weeks 1–3 | Clever rostering configuration, one engagement per LEA rather than per site: six conversations, not eighteen. Confirm grade-level rather than section-level sync. Confirm device ratios where the district statement does not cover the target grade, and count audio hardware by concurrency at every site. | All six LEAs |
| 3 · Site Training And Walkthrough Weeks 2–4, before the October window | A 45-minute proctor walkthrough per site, run against the behavioral health screening guide ↗. Combine at LEA level wherever staff are shared: one session for Sunnyvale’s three sites under the district lead social worker, one for San Diego’s three, one for Lake Tahoe’s TK–12 pathway, and Mount Pleasant’s Robert Sanders and Ida Jew sessions paired so the shared counselor trains once. Plan a longer session at Ida Jew Academy / Valle Vista, where the team will be running a universal screener for the first time. | All eighteen sites |
| 4 · Scheduling And Administration Design Weeks 2–5 | The site-specific work, including fixing the target roster at each site where it is set with the team. Rio Del Sol needs a schedule designed inside a project-based structure with no standing block. Milpitas High needs a design that works at 2,926 students against a 12–17 minute weekly advisory. Calaveras Hills takes a whole-school single sitting. Robert Sanders takes a make-up window rather than a single session, given roughly 28% chronic absenteeism. | Rio Del Sol · Milpitas High · Calaveras Hills · Robert Sanders |
| 5 · MTSS Integration And Referral Pathway Weeks 3–8, continuing | Where a pathway exists, route screening results into it rather than building a parallel process, Rio’s explicit instruction to its sites. San Diego’s three sites route into the wellness center already operating on each campus, and Clairemont High reviews results in an existing weekly multi-tiered meeting. Where a pathway is still forming, it is built alongside the first administration: Ida Jew Academy / Valle Vista is running a universal instrument for the first time. Name the Tier 3 escalation contact at every site. | Ida Jew / Valle Vista · Robert Sanders · San Diego ×3 |
| 6 · Data-Cycle Establishment Post-administration, ongoing | The support almost every site needs and none has requested. Fifteen of eighteen sites have no scheduled review that converts behavioral health data into goal-setting. The exceptions are Rio’s three, where Panorama results already generate intervention plans through a standing MTSS and SST cycle that screening data can join. Everywhere else results arrive and are read, not reviewed on a schedule with an owner. Establishing that cycle is the difference between a screener and a performance management system, and it is the core of the TTA Plan. | Fifteen of eighteen sites |
| 7 · Sustainability And CYBHI Billing Months 3–12 | Distinct arguments for distinct fiscal contexts. Milpitas has drawn CYBHI fee schedule ↗ reimbursement and carries $4.7M of staffing on expiring one-time money, the clearest case for evidence-supported transition to recurring funding. Sunnyvale is Basic Aid, where LCFF-based sustainability arguments do not apply at all. Rio and Lake Tahoe are Fee Schedule participants who have not billed. | Milpitas · Sunnyvale · Rio · Lake Tahoe |
Where Support Concentrates, And Why
The distribution is not even, and it does not track with district size or resources. It tracks with what already exists to build on.
Rio carries the lightest load. Named champions at every site, a confirmed target population at each, a district that has already decided its consent model, a site that has run the instrument before, and an assessment lead committed to being on site for the first screening. What remains at Rio is scheduling design at one site and a written device confirmation.
The heaviest design work sits at Ida Jew Academy / Valle Vista, and it is a different kind of work. There is no prior universal instrument to build on, the referral routing is still forming, and the counselor covering the campus also covers a second school. The work there is not a walkthrough; it is a routing and review structure designed alongside the first administration. It is also, for that reason, the site the Commission should watch most closely: it is the cohort’s clearest before-and-after case, and Mount Pleasant selected it for exactly that purpose.
San Diego carries the most coordination. Three sites across a district of 226 schools, no on-campus wellness center at any of the three, and referral routing that runs to a district office rather than down a hall. Scheduling and routing there are district-level design questions rather than site-level ones.
The Support Nobody Asked For
Across eighteen site assessments, not one site requested help establishing a data review cycle. Sites asked for walkthroughs, demos, scheduling support and technical configuration: all real, all short-horizon. What almost none has is a standing meeting at which behavioral health data is reviewed, against goals, by a named owner, on a schedule.
That absence is consistent across districts with very different resources: Sunnyvale at $6.9 million a year in support staffing, Mount Pleasant at $199,000. It is not a funding gap. It is a practice gap, and it is precisely what performance management means. The most important support this project provides is the one no participating site knows to ask for, which has a direct implication for the TTA Plan: it cannot be built purely from stated site needs.
From Readiness To Implementation
The supports identified through Deliverable 1 become direct inputs to Deliverable 3. The common training and capacity-building curriculum addresses the behavioral health performance management capacities identified across the cohort. Readiness findings help determine where participating LEAs and sites begin, which supports receive greater emphasis, and how support is sequenced. Implementation conversations then adapt those supports to local operating conditions, including existing teams, data routines, staffing structures, schedules and related information systems.
The support no site asked for, a scheduled data review cycle, is the one fifteen of eighteen need, which is what performance management means.