Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee to study annual mental-health screenings for grades 6–12 under HB 355
Summary
The School Health Services Committee will study best practices for annual mental-health screenings for students in grades 6–12 as required by House Bill 355 and include recommendations in its statutorily required annual report due Jan. 13, 2027. DOE and DBHDS will provide technical materials and follow-up at the September meeting.
The Senate School Health Services Committee agreed to lead the study and reporting work required by House Bill 355 (2026), which directs the committee, in partnership with the Department of Education, to develop recommendations on best practices for annual mental-health screenings for public school students in grades 6 through 12.
Julia Bergamini, the committee’s staff attorney, summarized the legislation and said the committee must include its findings and recommendations in its annual report, due no later than Jan. 13, 2027. She asked members for input on a work plan and for suggestions of experts and evidence-based tools to examine.
Joseph Wark, director of the DOE Office of Behavioral Health and Student Safety, presented survey data the department collected from all local divisions. He said about 35% of divisions reported conducting a universal mental-health screening using the survey’s definition, with notable regional differences: higher rates in urban and Northern Virginia divisions and much lower participation in Southside and Southwest regions. Wark listed commonly used screeners reported by districts, including the Devereaux Student Strengths Assessment, Signs of Suicide, Panorama and the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.
Wark emphasized that universal screening is one data point in a broader school-behavioral-health system and should be interpreted alongside attendance, behavior and academic data. He and Bergamini discussed key implementation issues the committee must consider: consent and opt-out procedures, staff training, accommodations for bilingual students and students with disabilities, confidentiality and data storage, referral pathways, and same-day intervention when screeners indicate imminent risk.
Committee members sought alignment with clinical practice. Delegate Mark Downey, a pediatrician, asked whether tools recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics are being considered; Wark and Bergamini said they would review those tools and incorporate relevant screening and referral pathways into the committee’s deliberations.
The committee asked DOE and DBHDS for written materials and follow-up presentations at the September meeting and agreed to circulate Bergamini’s compiled list of studies and citations to members. The committee’s work plan will be developed by staff and circulated to members for comment.
