Kansas committee hears testimony to codify school-based Mental Health Intervention Team program into statute

The Committee on House Health and Human Services opened a hearing on House Bill 22-36, a proposal to codify the Mental Health Intervention Team (MHIT) program into Kansas statute and place administration with the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS). The bill would establish program definitions, an approval and application process for school districts and providers, grant formulas, a qualified school mental health team board and annual reporting requirements. The bill’s effective date is listed in the measure as July 1, 2025, upon publication in the statute book.

Supporters told the committee the change would give the program permanency after operating on year-to-year budget provisos. “We believe if enacted, it would provide stability and ensure the continued growth of a program that has delivered essential services to Kansas youth and their families,” Taylor Bremer, assistant behavioral health commissioner for KDADS, told the committee. Proponents — including community mental health center leaders, school counselors, diocesan school administrators and parent advocates — described MHIT as a school-embedded model that places behavioral health liaisons in schools and pairs them with therapists and case managers employed by partnering mental health providers.

Why it matters: Proponents said codifying MHIT would stabilize funding and staffing, help sustain school–provider memoranda of understanding, require annual program reporting to the Legislature and preserve year-round access to behavioral health and crisis services for students. Witnesses pointed to outcomes reported by participating programs — improved attendance, academic performance and reductions in externalizing and internalizing behaviors — and to continuity-of-care benefits for students in foster care.

Key provisions and program design KDADS witness Taylor Bremer summarized the bill’s structure. Section 1 sets definitions (department, school district, MHIT provider and an authorization for KDADS to approve other provider categories). Section 2 establishes program purposes — including expanding access to behavioral health services for students, coordinating services year-round, identifying and linking students to resources and reducing workforce competition among school employers. Section 3 creates an annual application that school districts submit to KDADS, requires a memorandum of understanding between a district and its MHIT provider before KDADS final approval and authorizes grants to participating districts. The pass-through grant to the provider is capped in statute at 35 percent of the MHIT grant amount, and KDADS would prorate awards if the appropriation is insufficient. Section 4 defines team composition (school-employed behavioral health liaisons plus provider-employed case managers and licensed therapists). Section 5 requires districts to hold MHIT monies in a dedicated fund. Section 6 creates a qualified school mental health team board appointed by the KDADS secretary; the board would allocate funds, review funding criteria and report annually to specified legislative committees.

Program scale and results (as reported to the committee) Taylor Bremer told the committee MHIT began in 2018 with nine schools and has grown substantially since then. Bremer said program figures include a statewide network of school-based liaisons and thousands of students served: “Since 2018, 15 thousand students have received comprehensive behavioral health services in a school-based setting,” Bremer said. She reported that, in the 2023–24 school year, about 7,000 students received services and roughly 600 were identified as foster care youth. Bremer also said MHIT employs “over 240 school-based liaisons.”

Multiple community mental health center witnesses and school staff described locally maintained outcome tracking. Michelle Ponce, associate director of the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas, told the committee outcome measures reported by participating schools have remained “fairly consistent around 70% or higher,” citing improved attendance, academic performance and behavior measures in program data. Other provider witnesses reported similar ranges of improvement and gave examples of crisis response, continuity of care when foster youth move between districts, and reduced barriers such as transportation and appointment scheduling.

Questions and clarifications from members Representative Turner asked how close the program was to statewide “saturation.” Bremer replied that MHIT serves 108 public schools out of 286 unified school districts (USDs) — a datum she used to note the program was “less than halfway” to covering all Kansas public districts. Several members asked about after-hours and mobile crisis availability; Michelle Ponce and other provider witnesses said community mental health centers provide 24/7 crisis services and, in some areas, mobile crisis teams can respond when school buildings are closed.

Service delivery and participating school types Witnesses representing Catholic diocesan schools and private nonprofit agencies said the statutory language’s inclusion of “qualified schools” already allows nonpublic schools to participate. Several Catholic school leaders described participation focused on lower-income, rural or otherwise underserved campuses; they said many participating nonpublic schools previously lacked a school counselor and that MHIT services filled an otherwise unmet need in those buildings. School-based counselors who testified described using MHIT therapists to provide longer-term treatment while counselors maintained broader school responsibilities.

What the bill does not do (as presented) No changes to eligibility for health benefits or to Medicaid policy were proposed in the testimony. The bill, as described in testimony, does not set specific statewide staffing ratios nor an exact dollar-per-student rate; instead it ties district grants to salary and fringe amounts for school liaisons and sets the provider pass-through percentage at 35% of a district’s MHIT grant.

Next steps After testimony and questions the committee closed the hearing on House Bill 22-36 and proceeded to other agenda items. No committee vote on HB 22-36 was recorded in the hearing transcript provided to the committee.

Ending note Proponents asked the committee to move HB 22-36 forward so the program’s funding and oversight could be stabilized in statute rather than continued through annual budget provisos. Several witnesses emphasized that codification would make planning and staff recruitment easier in both rural and urban districts and preserve in-person, school-based access to treatment and crisis response.