10 · The Metrics Brief
The Metrics Brief · Version 2a
Deliverable 2a · for LEA structured review · Activity 2.5, 08/01/26–08/29/26 · becomes Deliverable 2b through the 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.
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) all come together here in one record. 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 a data-sharing dependency governs an indicator, the table names it.
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.
The five linked activities, in order, that produced the candidate indicator set. It is drawn as a diagram in the earlier working design.
Literature 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 record, 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
| 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. | Periodic, on the Tiered Fidelity Inventory administration cadence the site sets. | 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. | On the training and technical assistance delivery cadence. | 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 by each site's own Deliverable 1 implementation plan calendar. | High once a site's review calendar is established in D1. |
Student Demographics And Characteristics · 3 Indicators
| 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. | Aligned to each screening administration window. | 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. | Aligned to the screening cadence. | Moderate: depends on the site's data-sharing agreement covering those fields. |
Service Utilization · 3 Indicators
| 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. | Set by the 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. | Per billing cycle. | 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. | Set by the district's CYBHI cohort enrollment status. | Depends on the district's CYBHI cohort enrollment status. |
Outcomes And Impact · 3 Indicators
| 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 Pathway 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.
Statutory goals, CYBHI billing categories and each LEA's own framework language, held side by side. It is drawn as a diagram in the earlier working design.
The Behavioral Health Performance Index
Domain 4, Outcomes and Impact, carries BHPM's flagship score. The full construction rationale, covering 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.
| Dimension | Weight | Why It Carries That 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, so a site without service-receipt data yet is not penalized for it. |
| Performance Band | Composite Score |
|---|---|
| Emerging | < .45 |
| Developing | ≥ .45 |
| Establishing | ≥ .60 |
| Leading | ≥ .75 |
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.
Beneath the Voice dimension sits the per-student Wellness Index, scored across six BHPM-specific competencies: Self-Insight, Emotional Resilience, Relational Awareness, Conflict Resolution, Effective Help-Seeking, Reflective Growth. 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 Pathway 8 competency model used elsewhere on the platform.
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
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, covering its sources, its flows and 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.
The Commission requires the brief to assess the privacy and security implications of the data collected (its sources, its flows, its collection methods) and to establish data governance processes giving explicit operational guidance to everyone handling it. That section is written in full in the earlier working design and carries forward here.
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.
Every indicator in the brief carries a definition, a data source, a cadence and a citation back to the evidence base behind it.