02 · Selection & Readiness
How Readiness Indicators Were Considered
Two instruments were applied. An eight-dimension LEA Selection Rubric determined which districts entered the cohort. A Site Baseline Capacity Matrix documented the eighteen schools inside them. Both are reproduced in full in the companion instruments record; this section explains what was measured and what the results show.
The Four Indicator Categories The Contract Names, And Where They Sit
| Contract Indicator | Rubric Dimensions Applied |
|---|---|
| Existing behavioral health programming | D1 · BHSSA / MHSSA system participation D7 · Existing behavioral health service and screening footprint |
| MTSS infrastructure | D2 · MTSS infrastructure |
| Equity considerations | D4 · Equity and high-need population |
| Readiness to participate in behavioral health data collection and reporting | D3 · CYBHI sustainability readiness D5 · Leadership commitment D6 · Technology readiness D8 · Engagement capacity |
The criteria were set before outreach began, as part of the recruitment approach. The rubric formalizes those criteria into a scored instrument, compiled from the recruitment record rather than scored live during outreach. It documents which indicators were applied and how each LEA stood against them, and the full cell-level evidence sits in the instruments record.
Level Descriptors
| Dimension | 1 · Foundational | 2 · Developing | 3 · Competent | 4 · Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 · BHSSA / MHSSA System Participation | No connection to a county BHSSA or MHSSA-funded school behavioral health system. | County holds a BHSSA award; no documented service reaching this district’s schools. | District’s schools operate inside a county BHSSA/MHSSA-funded service system: wellness centers, school-linked services, or county behavioral health partnership. | District named as a BHSSA partner, or a BHSSA/MHSSA-funded service publicly attributable to a participating BHPM site. |
| D2 · MTSS Infrastructure | No tiered structure; need surfaces through referral only. | Tiering exists informally; flagging routes to a person rather than a documented process. | Documented MTSS/SST process on a regular cycle that screening data can route into. | Defined tier criteria, scheduled data review, and a named owner at each tier. |
| D3 · CYBHI Sustainability Readiness | No CYBHI participation of any kind and no documented preparation. | Stated intent or early billing infrastructure; no CYBHI-funded activity yet. | Approved Fee Schedule participant, or carrying documented CYBHI-funded workforce or service investment. | Fee Schedule reimbursement received: billing pathway demonstrated in practice, not only approved. |
| D4 · Equity & High-Need Population | No Title I sites; disadvantage indicators below county median. | Partial Title I coverage; moderate disadvantage indicators. | Majority of sites Title I; indicators at or above county median. | Nearly all sites Title I schoolwide, with SED, EL or SWD concentration materially above state averages. |
| D5 · Leadership Commitment | Interest expressed; no named lead, no agreement movement. | Named district lead; agreement set initiated but incomplete. | District lead engaged across multiple touchpoints; MOU executed; site leads identified. | District and site leadership engaged directly; full agreement set executed; site staff named and resourced. |
| D6 · Technology Readiness | SIS unknown or single sign-on unavailable. | SIS identified; rostering path or device coverage unverified. | SIS and SSO confirmed; device coverage adequate for the target grades. | Rostering, device coverage and audio hardware all verified for the target population. |
| D7 · Existing BH Service & Screening Footprint | No behavioral health service or screening presence at participating sites. | Service or screening at some sites, or in early implementation. | An operating service or screening footprint at participating sites, with a documented escalation path. | Standing service and screening, with results already driving intervention or an established referral relationship. |
| D8 · Engagement Capacity | No dedicated behavioral health staffing at participating sites. | Shared or partial staffing across sites; capacity strained. | Dedicated counselor or wellness staff at each participating site. | Dedicated site staff plus district clinical capacity and a named referral pathway. |
How The Six LEAs Scored
| LEA | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milpitas Unified | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 26/32 |
| Mount Pleasant Elementary SD | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 26/32 |
| Sunnyvale School District | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 25/32 |
| Lake Tahoe Unified | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 25/32 |
| Rio School District | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 29/32 |
| San Diego Unified | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 27/32 |
What The Distribution Shows
Where the cohort is strong. Every LEA sits inside a county behavioral health service system, and two reach Advanced on that dimension: Milpitas Unified, whose high school hosts an SCCOE-operated wellness center, one of only three in Santa Clara County, and San Diego Unified, named by name as a county COPES partner. Four of six appear on a published CYBHI Fee Schedule ↗ cohort roster, and three of the six have drawn reimbursement, including Milpitas, which appears on no roster. Reimbursement drawn is a materially stronger sustainability position than a list of approved billers. Equity concentration is high and consistent: sixteen of nineteen participating school entities are Title I schoolwide.
Where the cohort can develop. Across the cohort, MTSS infrastructure and engagement capacity are the two dimensions where districts most consistently land at Competent rather than Advanced. Regularly scheduled review of behavioral health data and consistently staffed engagement capacity are both emerging practices here, present in some form at most sites, but not yet formalized with a named owner or dedicated structures at every site. This is the clearest area of growth the cohort points to: the infrastructure and relationships exist, but the routines that would elevate them to Advanced are still taking shape.
The cohort was not selected for districts that had already solved performance management. It was selected for districts with the service capacity, the staffing and the technical infrastructure to make performance management possible, and without the scheduled data cycle that would make it unnecessary. That gap, present in five of six LEAs, is what the project is designed to close.
Site-Level Baseline
Beneath the LEA rubric, each of the eighteen sites was documented against a common baseline: enrollment and demographic profile from the California School Dashboard ↗ 2025 release, Title I status, behavioral health staffing, wellness center presence, MTSS maturity, existing screening instrument, and identifiable BHSSA-funded service. That matrix is the second instrument in the instruments record, and its site-level findings are summarized under Element 6.
Readiness As A Starting Point
The readiness findings establish implementation starting conditions rather than a pass or fail determination. Participating LEAs and schools enter BHPM with different combinations of established data routines, MTSS structures, staffing, technology, screening practices and implementation conditions. Those differences inform the emphasis and sequencing of training, technical assistance, coaching and implementation support in Deliverable 3.
Every LEA clears Competent on all eight readiness dimensions; the spread from 29 to 25 out of 32 reflects depth of existing infrastructure, not fitness to participate.