What The System Counts, And How It Knows The Counts Hold.

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.

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.

Where The Session Record Lives

The crosswalk sessions and the measures-identification sessions ran within the 07/01/26–07/30/26 window per the Implementation Workplan Crosswalk. Deveau Burr Group holds the session log, which carries the count, the cadence and the per-LEA breakdown, together with the local framework terms each district's staff surfaced. The diagram above illustrates the mapping pattern these consultations use rather than any one district's own language.