School Community Partnership for Mental Health

Download Report

Transcript School Community Partnership for Mental Health

S

chool

C

ommunity

P

artnership for

M

ental

H

ealth

An MPS School Based “Mental Fitness” Program

Charlie Bauernfeind, Milwaukee Public Schools Sheri Johnson, Medical College of Wisconsin Carrie Koss Vallejo, IMPACT Planning Council Sebastian Ssempijja, Sebastian Family Psychology Practice

Using the Clickers

 Each of you has a “clicker” that will allow you to respond to questions during the presentation, and we’ll be able to see the responses.

 Please use the pad of your finger to press buttons –not your fingernail.

 You can change your answer, but only your last response will “count.”

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Getting to know our audience What field do you work in?

Mental health provider Education- At a university Education- K-12 (Admin) Education – K-12 (SSW)

40% 35% 30% 25%

Education – K-12 (School Psy)

20%

School Nurses

15%

Other

10% 10% 38% 14% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24%

SCPMH Goal Statement

 The goal of the School Community Partnership for Mental Health is to:  refine and demonstrate the effectiveness of  a collaborative partnership model of mental health promotion and service  to influence systems changes needed for sustainability.

Research Assistants/ Community Health Workers Partners Community Mental Health Providers HMOs Sebastian Family Psychology Practice, LLC Schools in WI’s largest district and a Head Start provider Academic Partners Funders

Story Session Outline

 Chapter 1: SCPMH – The Early Years  Needs Assessment  Building the model  Addressing systems barriers  Chapter 2: SCPMH- The Middle Years  Perspectives from School Staff, Researchers, Community Health Workers & Therapists  Case Discussion

Story Session Outline

 Chapter 3: SCPMH- Graduation  Treatment Initiation  School and Parent Satisfaction  Behavioral Improvement  Stigma  Chapter 4: SCPMH-Lessons Learned  Outcomes

Chapter 1 –The Early Years Needs Assessment, Model Building, Barrier Busting Photo from City of Milwaukee’s I want a strong baby public health campaign

The Early Years

(

2005-2009)

1) National Family Week Partnership study (2005) of mental health services for youth in Milwaukee –

ACCESS IS PROBLEMATIC.

2) 3) Milwaukee Public Schools estimated only 5% of STUDENTS GET CARE.

Youth Mental Health Connections,

COMMITS TO ACTION.

Connecting Need and Capacity: A Study of Mental Health Services for Youth in Milwaukee County Lengyel et al 2005

The Early Years (2008-2009)

Relationships between schools and community providers Incorporation of evidence based practices Engagement with Parents and Caregivers Feedback and coordination with teachers Outcome data Sustainability Plans Screening and Referral processes

Need for better

Early intervention

The Middle Years: Pilot strategies Views from School Staff, Community Mental Health Providers, Researchers and Community Health Workers Case Discussion

The Middle Years: 2009-2013

 Three community-based agencies providing part time consultation and direct services in collaboration with four Milwaukee Public Schools  Project coordinator working with Leadership Team to oversee implementation  Public Health researchers developing and testing a process for outcomes research incorporating Community Health Workers  Operations manual and referral system being developed to support expansion

3 Levels of Support System

III II

• • • •

SBIRT & PBIS

Refer selected students Obtain ROI Consultation with Guardian Individual / Family Therapy • • Consultation with Staff Classroom presentations

I

• School embedding activities

SCPMH Community Coordinator

 The coordinator is the “go-to” person for the participating community mental health agencies  The coordinator assures that the community partners understand and comply with their roles  The coordinator works with insurance providers, community health workers, government agencies, and university researchers to enhance collaborative efforts

SCPMH School Coordinator

 The coordinator is the “go-to” person for schools  Coordinates school events and communications  Assures record keeping and data collection  Addresses problems at schools  Assures compliance with SCPMH policies and procedures

School Staff Perspective

 Mental Health is taboo → Mental Fitness  Overcoming “union” issues  Need full-time support services staff to triage  Building Bridges to schools takes time  The Building Principal  The Pupil Services Support Staff  The Classroom Teacher  Building trust is a slow process  School calendar and attendance are issues

COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER ROLE Bridge Building

 Assist with delivery and completion of initial paperwork by parents- ROIs, research consents and data  Conduct “check-ins” with providers and teachers  Assure two-way communication with families  Provide links to broad range of resources – school social worker and others  Participate in school’s family events and staff meetings  Provide a cultural/linguistic bridge for families to schools and providers

CHW/Parent Interactions at School Events

Community Health Worker (CHW) Perspective

 New role  Research assistant  Varied responsibilities:  Making home visits  Sharing info with therapist and school  Finding additional services for clients

What is the first priority for a CHW when meeting a family?

1.

2.

3.

4.

Get a Release of Information (ROI) Sign family up for research Connect family to support services Build an alliance/trusting relationship

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 11% 2 0% 3 5% 4 84%

Community Mental Health Agency Perspective

Reflections on the process

 Administrator buy in  Clinicians who had the “right fit”  Provider/Client Alliance

Community Mental Health Agency Perspective

Implementation experiences and deliverables

 Culture shift  Agency utilization  Feedback and ongoing assessment  Standardization of and operational momentum

Case Study Discussion Photo credit: MCW Annual Report – SCPMH staff from Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Publics Schools, IMPACT Planning Council and Sebastian Family Psychology Practice.

How should SCPMH intervene?

 12 year old male student  Classmates report he was bit by a dog  Teacher notes grades starting to slip  SSW engages student, provides social emotional support  Student develops attendance issues  SSW discovers student and mother were victims of random gunfire  Student detaches from friends

What are the major obstacles to school based mental health services?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Teachers are resistant School administrators won’t allow it Community providers aren’t interested Parents are not invested There is no good source of funding

Evidence Based Therapy is overrated and hard to implement in real world settings

1.

2.

True False

How important is it that families who receive therapy participate in the research? Please rate 1 (lowest) - 5 (highest) 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 3: Graduation Do we have the data to go forward?

Stages of Implementation

(Perales, Johnson, Barret and Eber) Focus Stage Description

Should we do it Exploration/ Adoption Decision regarding commitment to adopting the program/practices and supporting successful implementation.

Getting it right Making it better Installation Initial Implementation Elaboration Continuous Improvement/Re generation Set up infrastructure so that successful implementation can take place and be supported. Establish team and data systems, conduct audit, develop plan.

Try out the practices, work out details, learn and improve before expanding to other contexts.

Expand the program/practices to other locations, individuals, times- adjust from learning in initial implementation.

Make it easier, more efficient. Embed within current practices.

What have we learned?

 Treatment Initiation Rates  Stigma  Program Satisfaction and Challenges  School Staff  Parents  Mental Health Providers and Community Health Workers  Behavioral Improvement

Treatment Initiation

Perceptions of Stigma among School Staff and Parents

Program Evaluation

 Open ended interviews with parents of students enrolled in treatment (N=6)  Open ended interviews with principals from 4 schools (N=4; 100% response)  Closed ended survey data from staff at 4 schools (N=171; 69% response rate)  Open ended survey data from community mental health providers and community health workers (N=9; 100% response rate)

Overarching Themes - Positive

 Access  Safe environment for kids  Convenient for parents  Smart/Efficient for everyone  Partnership  Novel  Helpful  Needed  Outcomes  Behavior change

Overarching Themes - Negative

 Logistics  Consent  Communication  Capacity  Coordination  Parent Involvement  Lower than desired  Missed opportunity for input  Missed opportunity for addressing stigma  Stigma

Behavioral and Academic Outcomes-The Plan

 For those who consented to research:  Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire  baseline, 3 months, 6 months  parent, teacher, student  Revised Working Alliance Inventory  4 weeks, 6 months  parent, teacher, student

+

Behavioral Outcomes

2011-2012 Cohort

1) Office Referrals: Significant difference between pre/post intervention (p=.03) 2) Disciplinary Action Taken: Significant difference between pre/post (p=.0065)

2012-2013 Cohort

1) Office Referrals: Significant difference between pre/post intervention (p=0.014) 2) Disciplinary Action Taken: Significant difference between pre/post (p=0.003) Wilcoxon signed rank sum test used to test the significance of two paired samples.

Office Referrals- trends toward decline for those in therapy 2011-2012 School Year

Attendance – remained stable

2011-2012 School Year

Chapter 4: Lessons Learned From the real world

Lesson Learned:

 How do we implement best practices to engage parents?

School Staff Survey Results

*Dichotomized for Satisfied/Not Satisfied

Good News!

 MPS and partners expanding to a total of 8 schools in September 2014, including an MPS Charter School and a Head Start K5 school  MCW Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry providing evidence-based intervention consultation in 2014-15 school year  Project Prevent grant to MPS awarded in September 2014, expanding to 11 additional schools in 2015 and 2016 school years

Acknowledgements

 Dena Radtke and staff, MPS  Sue McKenzie, Rogers Memorial Hospital  Katie Pritchard and staff, IMPACT Planning Council  Audrey Potter, IMPACT Planning Council  Pippa Simpson and staff, MCW  Chelsea Hamilton, MCW  Sandy Bogar, MCW ; Vania Trejo, Zoey Schmidt, UWM  Kevin O’Brien and staff, Aurora Family Services  Cathy Arney and staff, Pathfinders Milwaukee  Sebastian Family Practice staff  Families and staff at OW Holmes, Hopkins Lloyd, Wedgewood Park and Audubon.