Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PCOE presents wellness‑center results to Auburn trustees; staff and parents press for clearer consent and notification rules
Summary
Placer County Office of Education staff briefed the Auburn Union School District board on wellness‑center staffing, referral and consent processes and outcome data showing fewer behavior response calls after targeted interventions. Trustees and parents pressed for clearer parent‑notification policies and measures of instructional time lost.
Placer County Office of Education presenters Luke Anderson and Ali Murphy told the Auburn Union School District board that on‑campus wellness centers have delivered targeted mental‑health supports and measurable reductions in disruptive incidents.
"We want them in their school environment all day long, and we're just here to give a little extra support if needed," Murphy said, summarizing the program’s goal of keeping students in class while providing tiered supports. Anderson and Murphy outlined the program model — licensed mental‑health specialists supervised by clinical staff, and community‑based youth liaisons — and described a referral process that relies on integrated teams and parent contact when services move beyond brief "wellness breaks." The presenters reported that from August through March the wellness staff logged 69 tier 2/3 referrals at Auburn Elementary, 114 at Evie Kane and 74 at Sky Ridge; 123 students participated in group interventions with a 95% completion rate, and all three sites showed large drops in behavior‑response calls between October and March (Auburn Elementary from 27 to 2; Evie Kane and Sky Ridge also fell substantially).
Trustees and parents used the Q&A to press for clearer policies on when families are notified. One trustee said anecdotal reports raised concerns that some students were taken to wellness without school‑team notification; Murphy said universal "wellness breaks" do not always trigger parent notification, but repeated visits (three to four per month) prompt integrated‑team review and outreach. Trustees asked PCOE to return with clearer proposals on notification and on ways to measure instructional time lost to center visits, and asked staff to disaggregate sign‑in data (unique students vs. repeated visits, group vs. individual services) for the board’s May follow‑up.
Board action: none. Staff follow‑ups requested: a breakdown of sign‑ins by unique student and service type; clearer parent‑notification policy options; and additional outcome metrics (self‑harm/risk‑assessment counts and longitudinal tracking) to evaluate efficacy.
