The Indicator Set

Deliverable 2 defines the indicators, outcomes, and metrics the project reports to the Commission across four domains: services provided, students served, service utilization, and outcomes and impact. This element describes how participating schools and LEAs are supported to use that measurement model in their own practice.

Support focuses on three things participants need to be able to do:

• match the level of information to the decision being made, distinguishing what a counselor may examine for an individual student from what a school team examines for a grade and what LEA leadership examines across schools;
• read behavioral health information alongside the attendance, engagement, academic, and service information the district already holds; and
• recognize when a pattern raises a question that requires another source of evidence before anyone acts on it.

The plan does not restate or extend the Deliverable 2 indicator set. The final Indicators, Outcomes, and Metrics Brief is due November 30, 2026, and this plan references it.

Baseline-Informed Goals

An initial administration establishes a baseline. Schools and LEAs are supported to use that baseline to inform a focused improvement goal, connected where appropriate to priorities they already carry: attendance, academic engagement, school climate, transition and readiness, positive behavioral interventions and supports, professional learning, priorities in the Single Plan for Student Achievement, or priorities in the Local Control and Accountability Plan.

Subsequent administrations allow the team to look at what changed, alongside implementation information showing whether the intended practice actually happened. Element 9 describes how that review is structured.

Performance Review Across Schools

LEA leaders use aggregate behavioral health information for decisions schools cannot make. Directors of student services, educational services leaders, and program leaders examine districtwide patterns, differences across schools, how programs are being implemented, district behavioral health offerings, staffing, professional learning needs, the support site leaders need, and the relationship between this information and LCAP or other accountability priorities.

Cross-site review is framed as inquiry. Variation between schools raises questions about implementation conditions, student population, and local context before it says anything about performance. Support on this point is explicit, because a cross-site view is easy to read as a ranking, and a school read as underperforming tends to defend itself instead of examining what the information shows.

Aligning Beyond The District

Behavioral health services for any student are funded and delivered by more than one agency. Aligning a school's behavioral health system with performance management therefore extends past the district, and DBG leads this work with county and state partners.

Four practices carry it.

• A shared way of describing services. Every child-serving agency sorts its services into universal, targeted, and intensive, and each uses its own words and rules. Participants map their own agency's services onto a common three-tier vocabulary that describes services rather than children, so a student can be in a universal classroom program and a targeted group at the same time and the record shows both. Laid side by side, the agencies in a county can see where the array is thick, where it is thin, and where two agencies fund the same thing.
• An inventory of what already exists. Participants complete an initiative inventory covering every program, funding stream, and staff role touching student behavioral health in their agency, noting whether the money is one-time or ongoing.
• A connection between the tables where decisions are made. At a school, the coordination of services team is where screening information meets the people who control services. At the county, the interagency leadership team established under AB 2083 and its executive advisory committee are the equivalent table for the whole system, with the authority to move money and staff. Sessions address how a barrier logged at a school reaches the people who can remove it, and how decisions travel back down.
• Use of reporting that already exists. County behavioral health plans file an Integrated Plan and a behavioral health outcomes, accountability, and transparency report. LEAs file the LCAP. Community Schools grantees are entering an accountability cycle. Sessions address where school-based screening and tier information fits within each of those, without proposing a new reporting obligation.

Each session opens with a single case traced from a screening result forward: who saw it, who was told, what level of support was offered, which agency paid, and where a handoff may not have happened. Sessions use the project's own dashboard and reports as the evidence, and participants practice explaining what the information shows to a board, a committee, or a superintendent in plain terms, beginning with student strengths.

Where This Support Is Delivered

School and LEA alignment is supported through the onsite training under activity 3.4 and the ongoing support under activity 3.6, using the Pathway 2 content of the Activity 3.3 curriculum. It reaches sites through strategic planning, professional development, and in-field coaching and application to practice.

System alignment is delivered through the quarterly convenings, which county partners join from the second session onward, and through briefings arranged for Commission members, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and legislative offices as findings become available. Breaking Barriers California supports the sessions touching the CYBHI fee schedule and scope of practice.