U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief: 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between 

School Climate Transformation Grants and Project AWARE

June 2018 

The Now is the Time initiative, introduced following the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, includes among its goals 

making schools safer and increasing access to mental health services. To address these aims, the U.S. Department of Education 

launched its School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG) program, which aims to promote more positive school climates and safer 

schools using an evidence-based framework known as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). MTSS emphasizes proactive 

strategies for defining, teaching, and supporting appropriate student behavior and learning to create positive school environments. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services simultaneously began its Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education 

(Project AWARE), which aims to promote better student access to mental health services by training school staff to notice, 

understand, and respond to signs of psychological distress.

The purpose of this study was to examine how states and districts that participate in both SCTG and Project AWARE reported

coordinating services and supports, including the mechanisms and practices used in coordination; grantee perceptions regarding the 

value of coordinating; and the challenges and lessons learned from a collaborative effort. This study used a conceptualization of 

coordination as a continuum of activities from simple communication and information sharing at the low end toward mutual 

responsibility and accountability at the high end.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. How did grantees coordinate SCTG programs with

Project AWARE?

2. What did grantees see as the benefits of coordinating

these two grant programs?

3. What were the challenges and lessons learned?

STUDY DESIGN

This study focused on coordination that occurred at the 

grantee level in sites that received both an SCTG from the 

Department of Education and a Project AWARE grant from 

the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, 

only those state education agencies and school districts that 

were awarded both grants were asked to participate — a 

total of 36 grantees, including 27 local agencies and nine 

state agencies.

Study findings are based on reviews of grant applications, 

grantee progress reports, and 136 semi-structured telephone 

interviews with state and district officials conducted between 

December 2016 and February 2017. Three to six staff 

members (primarily in student support roles) were 

interviewed per grantee; most but not all respondents were 

knowledgeable about work and coordination activities 

occurring beyond their immediate responsibilities.

Highlights

• Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated

planning, communication, and the development of

shared organizational structures. Most grantees

(69 percent) were rated as being involved in at least a

moderate level of coordination.

• Better integration of efforts to improve school climate

with mental health services (e.g., by training staff in

student identification and referral practices) was the

most commonly reported accomplishment of

coordination for grantees (75 percent).

• Regarding factors that inhibited coordination, districts

most often described limited resources (including time,

staff, or funds), whereas states more often reported

lacking common goals or understanding and having

different philosophies.

• Planning activities that grantees stated they wished they

had done differently included establishing a team as

soon as feasible, leveraging existing teams, clarifying

goals early on, and mapping resources to determine

which services and strategies were already in place to

avoid redundancies.

• Lessons learned about communication included the

importance of messaging, helping stakeholders

understand the need for and goals of the grant, and

connecting these goals to the district’s mission and other

initiatives and strategies.
COORDINATION BETWEEN SCTG AND PROJECT 

AWARE GRANTEES

Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated 

planning, communication, and the development of new 

organizational structures.

To address the question of how grantees coordinated, the 

study gathered data on the activities that consistently 

composed coordination efforts.

Joint training was the most common strategy identified by 

school districts (21 of 27) and states (all nine). It referred to 

the incorporation of content from one grant into the training 

of the other, or training staff from each grant program 

together. 

Coordinated planning was mentioned by seven of nine states 

and 14 of 27 districts, suggesting that coordination required 

intentionality and effort to create or redefine positions; 

establish or revise the scope of work for leadership teams; 

engage community stakeholders, families, and youth; 

schedule training; supervise implementation; and monitor 

data. 

Communication as a coordination strategy included attendance 

at meetings with representatives from both grants, cosponsored 

parents’ nights, regular correspondence in the form of 

newsletters or updates, and the sharing of collected data.

Finally, eleven of the 27 districts and all nine states indicated that 

they used organizational structuresto coordinate work across 

grants. This mechanism involved using a staff position, team, or 

office to coordinate information, work, and responsibility across 

two or more organizations.

Most grantees were rated as being involved in at least a 

moderate level of coordination. Overall, states exhibited a 

higher level of coordination than did districts.

More than half of districts and all state sites (69 percent of 

grantees) were engaged in at least moderate levels of 

coordination. The degree of coordination was determined not 

by the type of activity but by the degree to which it was

shared. At the low level, grantees shared information about 

their work. At the moderate level, staff across the grant 

projects worked together and planned events and activities, 

and their relationships were altered to some degree by the 

shared nature of their work. Grantees in the high range 

shared goals and resources and were mutually responsible 

and jointly accountable for success.

BENEFITS OF COORDINATION

Better integration of efforts to improve school climate with 

mental health services (e.g., by training staff in student 

identification and referral practices) was the most 

commonly reported accomplishment of coordination for 

grantees (75 percent).

Respondents identified the integration of school climate and 

mental health approaches in schools as the primary 

accomplishment of grantees’ coordination efforts. Grantees 

at both the district and state levels indicated that with both 

grants, they could enhance interventions for students, create 

teams, and more effectively meet students’ needs than they

could with either grant alone.

Slightly more than half of grantees (53 percent) described 

increased efficiency in the delivery of services as the 

primary advantage of grant coordination, followed by 

stronger relationships (42 percent) and working across 

disciplines (42 percent). States were consistently more likely 

to report each of these advantages than were districts.

Increased efficiency was identified as an advantage because 

grantees reported that coordination allowed them to align 

previously separate streams of work and thereby minimize 

redundancy and staff burden. Coordination produced 

stronger relationships for grantees, they reported, by 

establishing or expanding professional networks with 

community groups or feeder schools to meet student needs 

more effectively. For states, the creation of state 

management teams provided opportunities for staff to work 

with community partners and with staff across disciplines; 

respondents reported that this would not have happened had 

states not received funding for both grant programs.

CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Regarding factors that inhibited coordination, districts most 

often described limited resources (including time, staff, or 

funds), whereas states more often reported lacking common 

goals or understanding and having different philosophies.

Examples cited by district respondents included not having 

enough funds to pay people for participating in training or to 

pay for the substitute teachers that would allow them to 

attend training required for MTSS or Project AWARE. Time 

also was a limiting resource, with time pressures making it 

hard for school staff to attend training and meetings.

The importance of planning and the value of communication 

were the most commonly reported lessons learned for 

grantees (56 percent each).

Planning activities that grantees stated they wished they had 

done differently included establishing a team as soon as 

feasible, leveraging existing teams, clarifying goals early on, 

and mapping resources to determine which services and 

strategies were already in place to avoid redundancies. 

Lessons learned about communication included the 

importance of messaging, helping stakeholders understand 

the need for and goals of the grant, and connecting these 

goals to the district’s mission and other initiatives and 

strategies.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The complete report is available online: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html