Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)

Meeting Summary

May 1, 2014

COAGSMH Members Present

Stephanie Dumont, Academic Senate for CCC, South Representative, Golden West College

Jeannine Farrelly, California Youth Empowerment NetworkMental Health Association in California

Nancy Montgomery, Irvine Valley College

Vic Ojakian, Parent Advocate

Mary Ojakian, Parent Advocate/American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

Becky Perelli, Health Services Association CCC, City College of San Francisco

Jenny Qian, Orange County Health Care Agency

Duane Short, DHCS

Chris Villa, CSSO representative, Fresno City College

Phone-In Participants

Paula McCroskey, California Association on Postsecondary Education and Disability

Steven Kite, NAMI

COAGSMH Meeting Summary 05 01 141 | Page

Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)

Meeting Summary

May 1, 2014

CalMHSA

Ann Collentine

Foundation for CCCs

Colleen Ammerman

Heather McClenahen

Lee Anne Xiong

CCC Chancellor’s Office

Betsy Sheldon

Presenter

Susan Quinn,HSACCC

SMHP Project Partners

Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai (CARS)

Christina Borbely (CARS)

Amy Springmeyer (CARS)

Bob Saltz (PIRE)

COAGSMH Meeting Summary 05 01 141 | Page

Chancellor’s Office Advisory Group on Student Mental Health (COAGSMH)

Meeting Summary

May 1, 2014

Recap from January

The COAG agenda is driven by group consensus. This will continue to be the case. The group today will identify, at the end of the session, what are the next steps that will comprisethe subsequent agenda.

The May 1 meeting agenda was developed to address the action items from the prior meeting:

  • Align CalMHSA funding sustainability plan criteria to SMHP
  • Identify data and how it can be used
  • Report out from workgroups
  • Review and discuss CAYEN TAY focus group findings
  • Report on barriers and lessons learned that led to CBG underspending of budget
  • Explore the conversion of resources into mobile apps or other programs

CalMHSA Updates

Sustainability Plan

The CalMHSA Sustainability Plan includes two phases:

  • Phase I: July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015
  • Phase II: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2017

Criteria will be used for continuing projects with an emphasis on sustainability (see handout in packet).If fully funded, the estimated cost for Phase I Priorities (FY 14–15) is $18.5M, which is a reduction from the current annual funding level of $39M. Phase I funding is estimated at:

  • Suicide Prevention - $8.8 million
  • Stigma Reduction - $6.6 million
  • Student Mental Health - $3.7 million

The foundation of the plan depends on County contributions that range from 4-7%. Letters of commitment from counties were requested by May 1.Counties can indicate which, if any, priorities they support in their letter of commitment. Of the 58 counties, 53 are expected to send a letter.A taskforce formed last year to provide guidance to define sustainability for Phase II. The draft plan will go to advisory committee for public review in July. In August, the Board will review and vote on the plan. Selections of projects will be through competitive process (RFP). In August, the taskforce will present guidance for the second phase of the sustainability plan.

RAND Evaluation

The initial data and reports from RAND indicate increased mental health awareness in California.

Discussion/Comments

  • It was suggested that CMHDA directors advocate and reach out to leaders. The message needs to be repeated because of the need for integrated funding; not sole source.
  • A question was posed regarding services for veterans, particularly in Southern California. CalMHSA has targeted higher education for veteran programs. To date, 17CCC SMHP Welcome Home Veterans trainings have been held. Further, several counties provide services on campuses through county innovation funds. For example, Orange Coast College’s DropZone is staffed by volunteers and peer staff to provide referral links, etc. Local PEI is a key contact for CCCs who need to be part of the planning process. While the focus on veterans was a deliverable, the project is tasked with the broad student mental health issue.
  • May 13th is CA Mental Health Awareness Day. This will be youth-led launch of Directing Change. Members are encouraged to participate and invite as many people as possible to attend. Legislators are interested. Youth will be on hand. The event will include a mix of sessions and mediums for engagement and information dissemination.

Report Out From Workgroups

ACHA-NCHA Survey Data, Becky Perelli

Since the last meeting, the workgroup has met to review dataset and identify a need for additional support for sub-group analysis. With 17,000 student responses, it is the largest dataset of information from community colleges – and it was a substantial effort to support CCCs in completing the assessment process. Note that the reason the sample size is so large is because it was required of the CBGs. This is one way SMHP leveraged resources to build a robust dataset that represents the status of mental health in community colleges.The COAGSMH will have opportunity as a group to review the impressive data findings from this.

CCC/CMH Toolkit, Colleen Ammerman

The toolkit, which resulted from the January COAGSMH meeting, is the tangible piece to serve as an educational resource on how CCCs and counties can collaborate for a referral network. The design of the toolkit is based on regional variations: rural; mid; urban. Mutual support and leveraging of resources given the respective infrastructures is the emphasis.

The day long kick off meeting in Southern CA will be June 12 with subsequent calls/webinars to develop the product and garner feedback. The workgroup has a nice representation from CCCs and counties; additional interested parties are invited to participate.

CCCCO, Chris Villa

The Governor’s budget for 2014/15 included$100 million funding for SSSP andan additional $100 million for student equity plans ( revised budget released in May maintained these figures. If money is allocated, the equity plan criteria needs to be finalized by June since the funding will become available in July, and equity plans are due November.There was interest from the group to explore whether there is an opportunity to define the criteria for upcoming equity funding to include support to address systematically support for student mental health in the community college system including funding. Colleges often write their plans based on the template provided by the Chancellor’s Office who indicated that there is local college flexibility to develop plans and define target groups. Prior plan criteria focused on campus safety.

Although, funding is not set there is momentum to address student mental health. Data on impacts of certain student groups or gaps in student achievement could guide the criteria development and expand the limited definition of diversity from ethnicity, race, socio-economic status to include sexual orientation, mental health wellness, etc.) The COAGSMH would like to suggest that colleges have the option to have mental health as an optionfor how to use the money. The first step is to include the language in the criteria.

Additional Information

Chancellor’s Office Student Equity web page:

  • Student Equity Fact Sheet
  • Student Equity Plan Template (March 2014)

Action Items:

  • The COAGSMH will submit statement/recommendation to the Chancellor’s Office that in consideration of the use of equity funds, student mental health be included in the language criteria provided to colleges by the Chancellor’s Office. The recommendation will include data (RAND, PIRE) for the rationale for the request. The letter will include a request for response or feedback from CCCCO.
  • Chris Villa will draft the language for the advisory group to review.
  • Chris Villawill also follow up and discuss further with the CSSO President.
  • Stephanie Dumont will share the letter of recommendation with the Academic Senate representative on the workgroup.
  • A copy of the letter will be sent to Ann Collentine.
  • Stephanie Dumont and Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai will review Title 5 guidelines regarding professional development as a possible reference point to use equity funds to support training for academic counselors.

Alignment with CALMHSA Funding Criteria

(See the adopted criteria in the PEI document Administrative Matters Agenda 9.A pg. 12 of 172)

Ann Collentine suggested the CCCs have strong data and need to continue to look at how to package that. This information may be used to apply for Phase II funding as well as for public relations purposes within the CCC system to educate the system more broadly – more expansive range of faculty. CCCs need to build support at local level and need to garner buy-in at all local colleges, associations, and COAG to come together and advocate for student mental health being a priority.

The group conducted a modified SWOT approach to assess SMHP status and the tie to CalMHSA funding criteria.

Criteria / Strengths / Weaknesses / Impacts
Regional /
  • Regional Strategizing Forums
  • Data/Value
  • Cross sharing of information
/
  • Positioned
  • Collaborative/connected referrals
  • Partnerships established
  • MOUs for services

Evidence of impact /
  • Regional Strategizing Forums
  • Data
  • Reached almost every CCC and as a result expanded awareness
/
  • Outcome measures minimal
  • Final project data incomplete
  • Packaging
  • Clear articulation needed

Evidence Based Practices /
  • Data
  • Access
  • Referrals
  • Awareness
  • Kognito trainings
/
  • Difficult to move from awareness to Evidence Based Practicesimplementation
/
  • Create and enhance
  • Mobile apps positioned as opportunity for assessment, replication of the models most effective

General leveraging /
  • In-kind partnerships
  • Welcome Home Veterans training
  • Transitional Age Youth
  • In-kind support for trainings by request
  • Captive audience
  • Student needs
  • Student reachability
  • Ground up efforts – Connections with CMH
  • Betsy Sheldon’s position
/
  • Disparate health services
  • SSSP trumps SMH
  • CCCCO buy-in
  • Student success does not include SMH
  • Health not IDed as core value on local level
  • LOTS of resources to recognize/prioritize
  • Top down support
/
  • Policy development
  • Inclusion of data
  • Impacts how system defines success
  • Factors influencing success
  • Culminate the information and package it

Adverse impacts of loss /
  • Build capacity
  • Starting to implement
/
  • Loss of investment to institutionalize
  • Lack of systems infrastructure to deliver services
/
  • One-time funding to institutionalize – once funding lost, efforts lost and compete against other efforts within system

Is it a short term effort? /
  • Invested in systems/infrastructure
  • Positioned as opportunity replication of the models most effective
/
  • Not yet there yet
  • Lack of systems infrastructure to deliver services
  • One-time funding
/
  • Lose momentum

Discussion:

With the amount of data available, SMHP is poised to do great dissemination because that’s where SMHP can really get some leverage with partners. It was suggested the information could be packaged similarly to the CCCSMHP Program Report Spring 2014 pamphlet; CCCSMHP Partner Summary of Evaluation Findings; CalMHSA Report. It was noted, however, that often the pamphlet/flyer format is not effective as colleagues often overlook it.

Bob Saltz recommended an “actionable pitch” that includes concrete requests with budgets and tangible solutions the leadership can adapt/adopt/act on. For example, there is a movement from awareness to a focus on actions such as improving access, collaborating/connecting referrals, tying in to ACA to identify means for student coverage, providing screening processes, changing service delivery, and connectingto existing initiative and enhancements to successes to date.Changes to access mental health services may also include functional student email systems for referrals and follow ups; mobile apps that ping peers to remind them to follow up/support a friend; health coverage for students through ACA (e.g., bulk rate).

Susan Quinn agreed this is right at the crux of the public health model. If we are looking at strengths and weaknesses, we have the data about the needs – but a weakness of the system is the general leveraging capacity for all of these 112 CCCs. Having something grounded in every college: a health professional with a public health background who can do the follow up to get the student to services; the need to have a health center on every campus. These are not infrastructures that the state invests in; these are funded by student fees and are optional. The CCC system needs to acknowledge the weakness in investing in this infrastructure. It is the only way that evidence based services can be delivered.

Colleges also have a culture of one-time funding with goal to institutionalize programs; when the funding ends, the momentum is often lost. It is difficult to compete against other efforts that are within the system. It is difficult to get traction for sustainability and advancement. The associations that represent staff, faculty, counselors, etc. have influence on what is happening at the top (e.g., the equity dollars). The tsunami of “student success” is huge and connecting it [mental health] to student wellness is where it will happen. The way to leverage this opportunity is to tie student success to student wellness.

Jenny Qian from Riverside County Health Care Agency suggested the local County PEI models for ages 0-18 populations could be adapted for college level.

Action item:

  • CARSwill identify documentation for each CalMHSA PEI category and distribute to COAG for response, incorporation, and strengthen.

HSACCC CCC-NCHA Data 2013: Select Information on the Mental Health Status of Community College Students, Susan Quinn (see PPT: HSACCC Research Findings 2014)

Susan Quinn with the Health Services Association of CCCs (HSACCC) provided a snapshot of community colleges that participated in the annual ACHA-NCHA survey collected from CCCs and analyzed by the HSACCC.The dataset is the largest collected. Students self-reported information (e.g., suicide ideation). The anonymous self-report survey is psychometrically sound.The findings indicated an increased risk in all seven content areas.

In addition to the ACHA-NCHA survey, the HSACCC conducts a survey of health services every 3-years. 34 colleges participated, primarily the Campus Based Grants. The survey included seven major areas:

  • Demographics
  • Compliance
  • Funding Stability
  • Professional Staffing
  • Scope of Services
  • Outcome Measurement
  • Mental Health Services

Trend analysis is available that demonstrates the impact and longitudinal impacts. While trends are available from the HSACCC data between 2010 and 2013, caution should be given to correlation to the SMHP grant funding, which is on a different timeline.

What’s Working: Select Data on the Progress and Impact to Date of CCC SMHP, Bob Saltz (see PPT)

Bob Saltz from PIRE presented sources of data, types of data collected, and results to date for CCC SMHP. Bob Saltz notes that there is pressure to have findings about “what works” before all the data can realistically be collected.

Discussion:

The question of the definition of “suicide policies” arose. The question/survey was directed to very specific, targeted informants, typically the health person on campus. No definition was provided; rather the respondent answered the question based on their interpretation.Persistent follow up, leveraging meetings, creating public record of action/inaction, and generating a report are all efforts to advocate for suicide prevention policy.

The goal for last few COAGSMH meetings has been to identify how data can be used to promote student mental health wellness on campuses. Messaging. Packaging. Can the findings on trends be integrated into the statements made about the project? How can the data integrate with the CalMHSA sustainability criteria?The COAGSMH must be careful to attribute trends to SMHP – it isn’t a causal effect and only the “health information dissemination” component is a possible corollary effect.

What are the intermediary marketing opportunities: for the system, for other funding sources, and for state level funding partners?What are we marketing? The substantiated need? The program impact? Emphasis should be on creating equity by creating snapshot of needs comparative to other needs.Governor's Prevention Advisory Council(GPAC)may also provide an opportunity to integrate all health systems into focused, coordinated care as an approach to making impact on health status? It doesn’t stop at substance abuse and mental health – it’s about public health.

Action Item:

  • Becky Perelli and Bob Saltzwill identify relationship of PIRE’s CCC SMHP and ACHA-NCHA data and link to tangible proposed solutions.
  • CARSwill coordinate how to package key findings from the data and explore medium to package and means to disseminate results.

The Student Voice: CAYEN Transitional Age Youth Focus Group Findings (see PPT)

Jeannine Farrelly, CAYEN Project Director, discussed the report, Examining TAY Attitudes and Perspectives of the Mental Health System, a compilationof findings from four focus groups conducted with transitional age youth (TAY). The focus groups focused on why TAY who struggle with mental illness do not receive the help they need and challenges and barriers to seeking or receiving services. A copy of the report will be shared with COAGSMH members.

Member Announcements

Vic Ojakian: On Tuesday, April 29, the California State Assembly Business, Professionals, and Consumer Protection Committee, held a hearing on AB 2198. This bill would require certain mental health professionals to have suicide assessment, treatment, and management training. About 20 individuals and 10 organizations sent supporting messages and maybe 20- 25 supporters attended the BPCP hearing. In a bi-partisan vote, the BPCP Assembly members approved moving AB 2198 forward. The vote was nine for and one abstention. Later on the same day, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, California’s key legislator on mental health matters, stated he would co-sponsor the Senate version of AB 2198. Next up is an Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing in about two weeks. Members were asked to send a personal email/lettersupporting the bill.