The board reviewed a proposal to partner with Effective School Solutions (ESS) to bring an in‑district clinical program to Holmdel for grades 7–12. District leaders said ESS would provide wraparound clinical supports, individual and family counseling, targeted interventions, quarterly progress reviews and six hours of professional development for staff. A key service ESS would provide, administrators said, is the ability to conduct psychiatric clearances in‑district so students identified with suicidal ideation could be evaluated and cleared to return to school without an external hospital clearance when clinically appropriate.

Superintendent and administrators framed the program as a way to provide intensive, least‑restrictive supports for a small caseload (they described clinicians managing “no more than 10–12 students” each) and to reduce the district’s use of out‑of‑district placements. An administrator said the district’s analysis concluded the arrangement would likely be budget neutral or produce net savings because the per‑student cost of sending students to out‑of‑district placements can exceed the cost of bringing specialized services in‑house.

Union concerns and public comment: Patty Desaro, speaking for the Holmdel Township Association (HTA), told the board the district already employs social workers who perform many of the functions ESS would provide and argued the district should hire additional in‑district social workers or clinicians rather than contract with an outside provider. Desaro said HTA members have historically provided counseling, classroom support and family outreach and questioned whether taxpayers should pay a private company when the district could expand its existing staff. She also raised budget concerns and, citing other districts’ reports, noted that similar contracts can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Administration response: administrators said they had evaluated student flows, including students currently in out‑of‑district placements and those in the pipeline for such placements, and that the ESS proposal was structured to be revenue‑neutral or cost‑saving compared with continued out‑of‑district placements. District leaders emphasized ESS clinicians hold relevant clinical credentials and that the program’s school-based clinical model differs from the support currently provided by the district’s social workers and school psychologists, who work primarily on school-based interventions rather than therapeutic clearances and intensive clinical case management.

Why it matters: the proposal involves student mental-health supports, potential budget trade-offs and questions about whether to expand district staff versus contracting with a vendor. Both models — adding in‑district staff or contracting — have implications for continuity, cost, labor relations and clinical scope.

Next steps: the board will consider the proposal in the coming weeks. Administrators said they can share the detailed student‑pipeline analysis and cost comparisons with the board for further review.