Collaboration for Safe and Healthy 

Schools: Study of Coordination Between 

School Climate Transformation Grants 

and Project AWARE

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: 

Study of Coordination Between School Climate 

Transformation Grants and Project AWARE

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by:

Kimberly Kendziora

Amy R. Mack

Wehmah Jones 

American Institutes for Research

William E. Pate, II

Ad Hoc Analytics 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-11-O-0089/Task 

Order 23 with American Institutes for Research. Joanne Bogart served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any

product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be

inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Frank Brogan

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Victoria Hammer

Acting Director 

June 2018 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between School Climate 

Transformation Grants and Project AWARE. Washington, D.C., 2017. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

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

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at

ed.language.assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact:

Nikki Churchwell

202-205-4274

nikki.churchwell@ed.gov
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

v 

Contents

List of Exhibits..................................................................................................................................vii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ix

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................xi

Key Findings................................................................................................................................... xii

Study Methods............................................................................................................................... xii

Study Limitations .......................................................................................................................... xiii

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................................1

The Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Framework...........................................................................4

Continuum of Coordination.............................................................................................................5

Study Methods................................................................................................................................. 7

Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................................8

Study Limitations ...........................................................................................................................10

Findings: Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees.................................................11

How SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees Coordinated ................................................................. 11

Plans for Sustaining Coordination..................................................................................................16

Coordination of Funding ................................................................................................................17

Coordination Reflected in Grantee Applications...........................................................................18

Types of Personnel Involved in Coordination................................................................................19

Findings: The Value of Coordination .................................................................................................21

Benefits of Grant Coordination......................................................................................................21

Factors That Enhanced Grant Coordination ..................................................................................27

Findings: Challenges and Lessons Learned ........................................................................................31

Challenges to Grant Implementation ............................................................................................31

Federal Support for Grant Coordination........................................................................................35

Lessons Learned From Grant Coordination ...................................................................................36
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

vi

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................39

References.......................................................................................................................................41

Appendix A. Technical Details for Coordination Continuum Ratings...................................................43

Appendix B. GPRA Data for School District and State-Level Grantees.................................................47

Appendix C. Data Tables...................................................................................................................49
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

vii

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Description of tiers and examples of intervention 

activities ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Exhibit 2. The continuum of coordination .................................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 3. Geographic distribution of district and state grantees................................................................. 7

Exhibit 4. Levels of the coordination continuum, typical activities, and representative quotes ............... 10

Exhibit 5. Coordination strategies and mechanisms for MTSS reported by school districts and 

states, 2016–17 .................................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 6. Distribution of levels of coordination across SCTG and Project AWARE district and state 

grantees, 2016–17................................................................................................................................ 15

Exhibit 7. Plans for sustainability as reported by school districts and states, 2016–17 ............................. 17

Exhibit 8. Accomplishments resulting from grant coordination reported by school districts and 

states, 2016–17 .................................................................................................................................... 22

Exhibit 9. Advantages to grant coordination reported by school districts and states, 2016–17................ 24

Exhibit 10. Long-term changes resulting from coordination reported by school districts and states, 

2016–17 .............................................................................................................................................. 25

Exhibit 11. Factors that enhanced coordination as reported by districts and states, 2016–17................. 28

Exhibit 12. Challenges to grant coordination reported by school districts and states, 2016–17............... 32

Exhibit 13. Factors that inhibited grant coordination as reported by school districts and states, 

2016–17 .............................................................................................................................................. 34

Exhibit A-1. Construction of coordination continuum ratings for school districts and states.................... 43

Exhibit B-1. GPRA indicators for district and state SCTGs ........................................................................... 47

Exhibit B-2. Percentage of schools implementing MTSS with fidelity ........................................................ 48

Exhibit C-1. Coordination strategies used as part of an MTSS or behavioral support framework 

reported by district and state grantees................................................................................................ 49

Exhibit C-2. Plans to continue coordination after the grants end reported by district and state 

grantees .............................................................................................................................................. 50

Exhibit C-3. Long-term changes resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state 

grantees ............................................................................................................................................... 51

Exhibit C-4. Advantages resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state grantees........ 52

Exhibit C-5. Accomplishments resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state 

grantees .............................................................................................................................................. 53

Exhibit C-6. Challenges faced in doing the work of the grant reported by district and state 

grantees .............................................................................................................................................. 54

Exhibit C-7. Factors that enhanced grant coordination reported by district and state grantees ............... 55

Exhibit C-8. Factors that inhibited grant coordination reported by district and state grantees ................ 56

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

ix

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First, we are 

grateful for the guidance and support of the U.S. Department of Education. We specifically thank Joanne 

Bogart, Nikki Churchwell, and Stephanie Stullich of the Policy and Program Studies Service. From the 

Office of Safe and Healthy Students, we thank David Esquith, Rita Foy Moss, Paul Kesner, Eve Birge, and 

Bryan Williams. From the Budget Service, we thank Bill Cordes and Larry Cohen. We also extend our 

gratitude to program staff from other federal agencies involved in this effort: Ingrid Donato from the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and Kathy Mitchell from the Office of 

Justice Programs. We are grateful to the grantees in the School Climate Transformation Grant program, 

Project AWARE, and the School Justice Collaboration Program for their gracious participation in the 

interviews for this study. Without their contributions, this report would not have been possible, and we 

appreciate their assistance. We also would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the 

members of our technical working group: Andrea Alexander, Catherine Bradshaw, Sharon Hoover, 

Jeffrey Sprague, and Mark Weist. 

Although the assistance and support of these individuals helped improve the richness, value, and validity 

of this report, any errors in judgment or fact are the responsibility of the authors. 

xi

Executive Summary

Safe schools with positive climates cannot be achieved by any one education office or department alone; 

professionals across disciplines, including instruction, counseling, and mental health, must work together 

to achieve this goal (Barrett, Eber, and Weist 2012; Osher et al. 2014). The purpose of this study was to 

examine the nature and extent of coordination occurring in school districts and state departments of 

education that were awarded federal grants related to improving school climate and increasing access to 

mental health services. These awards were made as part of the Now Is the Time initiative, which was 

established in response to the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut,

in December 2012. 

The federal agencies involved in the initiative designed three grant programs to increase the capacity of 

staff in state education and school district offices to better coordinate with one another. One such grant 

program, the U.S. Department of Education’s School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG) program, aims 

to promote safer schools and more positive school climate and safer schools by using an evidence-based 

framework known as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). MTSS is a schoolwide approach to behavior

and learning that emphasizes proactive strategies for defining, teaching, and supporting appropriate 

student behavior to create positive school environments. The second program, the Department of Health 

and Human Services’ (HHS) Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (Project AWARE), 

aims to promote better student access to mental health services by training school staff to notice, 

understand, and respond to signs of psychological distress among students. The third program, the 

Department of Justice’s Keep Kids in School and Out of Court, also was part of the Now Is the Time 

initiative, but it had only one grantee in common with the SCTG program and is not included in this report. 

Coordination across these grantees was expected to occur within the MTSS framework, which organizes 

behavioral and instructional interventions for students into tiers based on the group of students served: 

Tier 1 supports all students, Tier 2 supports groups of students at risk, and Tier 3 supports individual 

students who have more intensive service needs. All supports aim to promote positive behavioral 

outcomes (personal, health, social, and family) and learning outcomes for all students. State grantees 

were expected to coordinate their technical assistance to school districts, particularly regarding the 

integration of comprehensive school climate and mental health services into MTSS. District grantees 

were expected to coordinate by developing, enhancing, or expanding MTSS in schools in ways that 

would improve the processes through which students would be identified and referred for service and 

would provide school staff with training in mental health awareness and literacy.

This study examined how the nine states and 27 school districts that participated in both SCTG and 

Project AWARE used the two programs to provide coordinated services and supports. More specifically, 

the study examined the mechanisms and practices used in coordination, grantee perceptions regarding 

the value of coordinating, and the challenges and lessons learned from collaborative efforts. The study 

used a conceptualization of coordination as a continuum, with simple information sharing at the low end 

and mutual responsibility and accountability at the high end, to examine the degree to which training, 

planning, communication, and shared organizational structures were implemented in the study sites. 

The study involved 136 telephone interviews with state and district staff in sites that received both SCTG 

and Project AWARE grants, as well as reviews of grant applications and federal reports. 
xii

Key Findings

Key findings from this study include the following: 

• Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated planning, communication, and the 

development of shared organizational structures. Most grantees (69 percent) were 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.

Study Methods 

Sample

This study focused on coordination that occurred 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. Nine state education agencies and 27 school districts received awards 

from both programs, for a total of 36 sites that were included in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis 

The study was informed by extant data and semistructured interviews with project staff. Telephone 

interviews were conducted between December 2016 and February 2017 and explored whether and how 

these grantees reported coordinating their work, what benefits they perceived by coordinating multiple 

grants, and the challenges and lessons learned from coordination. At each site, the study team 

interviewed between three and six individuals, including the project directors for each grant. In total, 

136 people across both the state and district groups (97 district staff and 39 state staff) participated in 

the interviews. 

Extant data collected from the two grants included grantee applications and coordination plans, which

provided contextual information and grantees’ proposed plans for coordination across the grant 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

xiii 

programs. Government Performance and Results Act data also were examined for grants from the 

Department. These data included performance measures for the outcomes of the grants. 

Data analysis used a qualitative coding scheme to extract relevant information from the applications, 

reports, and transcripts of the interviews. All interview transcripts were coded both within (by 

interviewee) and across grant sites. State and district grant sites were analyzed separately and are 

reported separately and combined as “all grantees.” 

Study Limitations

The findings reported for this study are limited to some degree by the fact that although respondents were 

identified for interviews based on their role in coordination, not all respondents were knowledgeable 

about work and coordination activities occurring beyond their immediate responsibilities. In some 

instances, personnel most knowledgeable about coordination were no longer employed by a site. 

Summary of Findings

How SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees Coordinated

Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated planning, communication, 

and the development of shared 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 

21 of 27 school districts and all nine states. It involved incorporating content from one grant into the 

training of the other or training staff from each grant program together. 

Coordinated planning was mentioned by 14 of 27 school districts and seven of nine states and included

activities such as creating or redefining positions; establishing or revising the scope of work for 

leadership teams; engaging community stakeholders, families, and youth; scheduling training; 

supervising implementation; and monitoring data. Promoting alignment and minimizing duplication 

across school services (e.g., bullying prevention, social skills development, attendance support, and 

school climate) were key examples of coordination. 

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. Of the 27 school districts, 14 highlighted communication as a 

coordination strategy, and all nine states noted that communication was one means of coordinating. 

Finally, eleven of the 27 school districts and all nine states indicated that they used organizational structures

to 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. Examples included the 

intentional overlap of positions across grants, a dedicated team or committee that involved 

representatives from the two federal grants, and external partnerships (e.g., community groups and

mental health clinics). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

xiv

Most grantees were involved in at least a moderate level of coordination. Overall, states 

exhibited a higher level of coordination activities than did districts.

More than half of the districts and all state sites (69 percent of the grantees) were engaged in at least 

moderate levels of coordination; only two grantees had low 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 both grants 

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. 

The SCTG applications did not provide many details about what coordination would 

entail or how sites would work with other projects. 

All grantees indicated that their SCTG application addressed the competitive preference priority for 

coordination with Project AWARE or other funding opportunities. However, beyond reporting that

coordination would take place, coding and analysis of the grant applications showed that grantees 

generally did not provide details about what this coordination would entail or how they would work

with other projects. When specific coordination mechanisms were noted, they most commonly included 

training staff (such as training on the YMHFA curriculum) to build capacity or share resources across 

projects, such as having a single coordinator or a team with representatives from both grants.

The Value 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). 

When Project AWARE and SCTG projects work together, the focus of the overlapping efforts is the 

integration of a schoolwide behavioral support framework with a systematic approach to identifying 

students in need of mental health services. This integration of efforts produced a positive, safe school 

climate and array of mental health services that the interview respondents identified as the primary 

accomplishment of grantees’ coordination efforts. Grantees at the district (20 of 27) and state levels 

(seven of nine) indicated that through collaboration, they could enhance interventions for students, 

create teams, and more effectively meet students’ needs than they could with either grant operating in 

insolation. 

Slightly more than half of the 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 these advantages than were districts.

Other advantages reported by states and districts included better professional networks with 

community groups or feeder schools. For states, the creation of state management teams provided 

opportunities for staff to work with community partners and with staff across disciplines; this would not 

have happened had states not received funding for both grant programs. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

xv

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 the district respondents included not having enough funds to pay people for 

participating in training or pay for the substitute teachers that would allow them to attend the training 

required for MTSS or Project AWARE. Time also was a limiting resource, with multiple demands on time 

making it hard for school staff to attend training and meetings. A state-level Project AWARE respondent 

said, 

I think the only way that collaboration for us was inhibited was in having some murky 

understanding of what the outcomes or expectations [of collaboration] were. It’s hard to 

feel like what you’ve done was effective. . . when you’re not entirely sure of all the goals. 

Grantees reported that federal officials expected coordination across grants, and about 

half (53 percent) reported receiving federal support specifically designed to help them 

achieve this goal. 

Grantees acknowledged that federal agencies communicated their expectation of coordination by

providing additional points in scoring applications, helping them make local contacts, and including all 

grantees in annual national meetings. Thirteen of 27 school districts and six of nine states had 

respondents who indicated that the funding agencies provided direct support for coordination, including 

reflecting on coordination plans, providing feedback and suggestions, and following up on progress. 

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. Grantees also 

noted the importance of engaging key stakeholders early in the process and educating them about the 

grant (e.g., plans and progress updates). 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.

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

1 

Introduction

Schools can work toward achieving safe, positive environments by integrating a behavioral support 

framework for students with a systematic approach to identifying students in need of mental health 

services. This study of the U.S. Department of Education’s School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG)

program examined how participating states and school districts worked to achieve this goal by 

coordinating services and supports with Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (Project 

AWARE), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Findings 

were based on data gathered through two sources: (1) telephone interviews with grantees to explore 

the ways in which services were coordinated, the benefits experienced from program coordination, and 

challenges and lessons learned and (2) grantee applications and reports to understand how coordination 

was originally conceptualized and the extent to which grantee goals were being met. Grantee districts 

and states were assigned ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 for the degree to which their grant activities were 

shared; these ratings contextualized the descriptions provided in interviews and documents to help 

understand the intensity of coordination. This study described the coordination that occurred, related 

the perceived value and benefits of coordination, and presented challenges and lessons learned. 

Background

Schools in the United States have shown steady declines in violence and victimization since the early 

1990s, when the Department began tracking these indicators. For example, the National Center for 

Education Statistics reported there were 841,000 violent victimizations1 in schools in 2015 (MusuGillette et al. 2017), down from 1.4 million in 2005 and 3.8 million in 1995 (Dinkes et al. 2006). However, 

following the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, a 

comprehensive initiative titled Now Is the Time was introduced to promote a safe learning environment 

for students in schools (White House 2013). Among this initiative’s goals, two were directly relevant to 

this study: (1) making schools safer and more nurturing and (2) increasing access to mental health 

services so that students and young adults who need supports or interventions receive them. 

Now Is the Time laid a foundation for the federal grant programs that were the subject of this study. The 

Department created and administers the SCTG program, which aims to create a safer climate at schools by 

supporting the development, enhancement, or expansion of systems of behavioral support at both the 

state and local levels. HHS aims to address the Now Is the Time goal of promoting access to mental health 

services through Project AWARE, which trains adults in school systems to notice and address signs of 

mental health distress among young people. At the state level, Project AWARE also funds a variety of 

initiatives to assist states in supporting district implementation of school safety and student development 

programming (e.g., bullying prevention, social and emotional learning, and conflict resolution). A third 

federal program, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) School Justice Collaboration Program: Keeping 

Kids in School and Out of Court, aims to address both Now Is the Time goals by using evidence-based 

reforms to create positive school climates, promote positive discipline, minimize exclusionary discipline, 

and avoid unnecessary referrals from schools to juvenile justice and law enforcement. Although the study 

team collected data from a DOJ grantee, only one DOJ site overlapped with an SCTG grant, so it was 

1 “Violent victimizations” include simple assault (threats and attacks without a weapon or serious injury) as well as rape, sexual 

assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

2 

excluded from the analyses presented in this report. The Department contracted the study described in 

this report to examine how states and school districts participating in the SCTG program and Project 

AWARE were coordinating services and supports across both grant programs (U.S. Department of 

Education 2015). 

The purpose of the SCTG is to develop, enhance, or expand a multi-tiered behavioral framework,

2

known as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), to promote a more positive school climate and safer 

schools for all students. Although MTSS frameworks often include tiered instructional supports (e.g., 

response to intervention), the SCTGs included a focus on the behavioral aspects of student support.

Effective interagency coordination at the district and state levels is important for supporting school-level 

implementation of MTSS (Algozzine et al. 2014). The primary goal driving this study was to better 

understand the ways in which SCTG and Project AWARE conducted their work in a coordinated manner 

and learn about the perceived benefits and challenges of coordination. 

The conceptualization of coordination used for this study looked at a fixed set of activities (training, 

planning, communication, and having shared organizational structures) and rated reports of how these 

were coordinated along a continuum from simple information sharing at the low end to shared 

responsibility and accountability at the high end (Osher 2002). Grantee sites were rated on a scale of 

1 to 5 based on the degree to which these activities were shared. 

Focusing on the nine states and 27 school districts that had both grants, the study was informed by 

interviews with 136 state and district staff from both grants. The interviews were conducted by 

telephone between December 2016 and February 2017 and explored whether and how these grantees 

reported coordinating their work, what benefits they perceived from coordinating multiple grants, and 

the perceived challenges and lessons learned from coordination. In addition, federal program offices 

supplied extant data (grant applications and grantee reports). The specific evaluation questions were as 

follows: 

1. How did grantees coordinate the SCTG program with Project AWARE?

2. What did grantees report about the value of coordination?

3. What were the challenges and lessons learned?

Description of the Grant Programs

School Climate Transformation Grants

The SCTG program, administered by the Department’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students and initially 

authorized by Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4121 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides support for the implementation of 

an evidence-based MTSS framework. MTSS is a framework for schoolwide behavior management that 

emphasizes proactive strategies for defining, teaching, and supporting appropriate student behavior to 

create positive school environments. Instead of using piecemeal individual behavior management plans, 

a continuum of positive behavior support for all students in a school is implemented in both classroom 

and nonclassroom settings (e.g., hallways, buses, and restrooms). Supports for student behavior are 

2 A “behavioral framework” is a way of organizing actions in a school to support students’ positive behavior and provide 

appropriate and effective consequences for disruptive or other problematic behavior. In some schools, mental health supports 

also are part of a behavioral framework.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

3 

organized into tiers based on the group of students served: Tier 1 supports all students, Tier 2 supports 

groups of students at risk, and Tier 3 supports individual students who have more intensive service 

needs. All supports aim to improve behavioral outcomes (personal, health, social, family, recreation) for 

all students by making negative behaviors less effective, efficient, and relevant and desired behavior 

more functional.

At the school district level, the goals of the SCTG program are to connect students and families to 

appropriate services and supports; improve conditions for learning and behavioral outcomes for schoolage youth; and increase awareness of and the ability to respond to mental health issues among schoolage youth. 

At the state level, the SCTG program aims to support the enhancement and expansion of MTSS 

frameworks in schools and districts throughout the state. The state-level goals of the SCTG program are 

to develop, enhance, or expand statewide systems of support for school districts and schools 

implementing MTSS. Both state and district grantees are required to develop or enhance existing 

evidence-based MTSS behavioral frameworks toward achieving more positive school climates, greater 

school safety, fewer disciplinary actions, and improvement in learning environments. 

In September 2014, the Department awarded 71 school districts and 12 states five-year SCTGs. Fiscal 

year 2014 awards totaled $36 million for school districts and $7 million for states, with a maximum 

annual grant amount for both states and districts of $750,000 per year (U.S. Department of Education 

2015). Applicants could receive competitive preference points if they included in their plans the

coordination of the SCTG with related programs, such as the HHS-funded Project AWARE. Thus, the 

SCTG program included an explicit expectation that work would be coordinated in support of the MTSS 

framework. 

Project AWARE

Project AWARE is administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) in HHS and is authorized by Section 520A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. It 

provides training in Youth Mental Health First Aid (YMHFA) to teachers and other adults who regularly 

interact with students. The YMHFA training is a mental health literacy program that introduces 

participants to the risk factors and observable symptoms of mental health problems in adolescents and 

teaches adults how to help youth who are in crisis or experiencing mental health or substance use 

issues. The training uses role playing and simulations to demonstrate how to assess a mental health 

crisis and connect young people to professional, peer, social, and self-help services. The goal of YMHFA 

is to train adults to recognize young people in need of help and provide referrals to appropriate mental 

health services. 

Funding at the school district level supports the training of teachers, counselors, other school personnel 

(e.g., administrators, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, playground attendants, athletic coaches, and 

trainers), emergency responders (e.g., police and firefighters), parents, caregivers, and other youthserving adults in YMHFA. 

Funding at the state level supports building and expanding districts’ capacities to promote 

comprehensive school mental health and safety. Activities include helping districts increase the 

awareness of mental health issues among school-age youth and providing training for school personnel 

and other adults who interact with school-age youth to detect and respond to mental health issues. 

Project AWARE required that state grantees create a state management team with representatives from 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

4 

education, state mental or behavioral health agencies, and other child- and family-serving agencies. The 

purpose of this team was to promote coordination; therefore, coordination for state grantees was 

hypothesized to be higher than for district grantees. 

Each of the 20 Project AWARE state grantees was required to identify three school districts in their 

respective states that would implement YMHFA and serve as local laboratories for coordinated safe 

school efforts. The 60 districts in the state program were funded to engage in both comprehensive safe 

school efforts and YMHFA-focused work that paralleled the work of the 99 school districts funded 

through the Project AWARE district program. 

In September 2014, HHS awarded five-year Project AWARE grants to 20 states and two-year grants to 99

school districts. The awards totaled $34 million for states and $9 million for school districts. The 

maximum annual grant amount was $1.95 million per state grantee, $50,000 per school district grantee, 

and $125,000 per community grantee (U.S. Department of Education 2015). The HHS required that 

every Project AWARE applicant apply for an SCTG and also encouraged applicants to apply for the School 

Justice Collaboration Program grant. 

The Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Framework

The MTSS framework organizes a continuum of services at multiple levels of intensity within a school. 

Services for all students may include teaching behavioral expectations or developing positive character 

traits. At higher levels of student need, such as those experiencing mental health issues, services may 

involve providers outside the immediate school setting. The processes of student identification, 

screening, referral, and care management that are necessary for effective service provision require 

strong coordination within schools and between schools and community-based providers and families 

(Barrett et al. 2012). This study explored whether districts and states that received federal grants to 

(1) build MTSS frameworks and (2) promote greater access to mental health services could develop the 

coordination necessary to integrate school mental health and the MTSS framework. 

MTSS is not a program itself; it is a system of organizing programs or interventions so that they are 

delivered to appropriate students. Services can be provided to all students in a building (Tier 1), students 

who are at risk (Tier 2), or students in high need (Tier 3; see Exhibit 1).

Tier 1 in MTSS refers to the set of programs, interventions, and overall environments provided to all 

students in a building. Behavior management, bullying prevention, and family engagement are examples 

of practices or approaches that all students receive. School counselors may visit classes to provide 

structured lessons in social and emotional learning or character education. Schoolwide interventions 

supporting a positive school climate and promoting positive relationships also belong in Tier 1. Such 

interventions may include establishing norms; promoting strengths and positive adaptation; and 

preventing problems such as bullying, suicide, or substance abuse. 

At Tier 2, schools provide services to students having some problems functioning successfully in school. 

Most school systems have counselors, social workers, or school psychologists on staff who can provide 

these services. Schools generally provide these services to small groups of students outside the regular 

classroom setting. Tier 2 services include social skills groups, peer mediation, or behavior plans that may 

involve a daily note home. In some instances, community-based organizations may be contracted to 

provide Tier 2 services in schools that have a limited capacity for student behavioral support. In these 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

5 

cases, the school and the service provider would engage in some coordination to arrange the logistics 

for the services, as well as potentially integrating the service plan with the student’s schooling. 

Exhibit 1. Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Description of tiers and examples of intervention activities

Tier Portion of target 

population Examples of intervention activities

Tier 1: Supports for 

all students All students

• Set behavioral expectations collaboratively with students

• Teach and reinforce positive behavior

• Engage families

Tier 2: Supports for 

students at risk 

Approximately

5%–15% of

students

• Targeted social skills instruction

• Peer-based supports or mediation

• Daily note home

Tier 3: Supports for 

the highest need 

students

Approximately

3%–5% of

students

• Functional behavioral assessment and person-centered planning

• Wraparound services

• Coordination with youth-serving agencies (e.g., juvenile justice

and child welfare)

Exhibit reads: Tier 1 in MTSS targets all students in a school. An example of a Tier 1 intervention is setting 

behavioral expectations collaboratively with students. 

Tier 3 refers to a more intensive level of services, such as individual therapy, functional behavioral

assessment, wraparound services, or supervisory support for youth on probation. A student identified as 

needing additional supports may receive either Tier 2 or Tier 3 services or both. The level of 

coordination between school staff and mental health or other agency personnel tends to be higher at 

Tier 3 (Debnam, Pas, and Bradshaw 2012). Teachers may receive support or training from a specialist to 

implement behavioral interventions in the classroom, or teachers may be invited to attend treatmentplanning meetings. Therapists may make recommendations to be implemented by school staff regarding 

behavior support for students at high risk, or counselors may be asked to coordinate in-school visits for 

youth in juvenile justice diversion programs. 

An important point of connection between educators and personnel who promote access to mental 

health services (and between SCTG and Project AWARE) occurs in the process through which students in 

a school’s general population are identified and referred to school teams to receive Tier 2 or Tier 3 

services. All sites in this study trained adults who work in and around a school to notice signs of mental 

health challenges, engage with the youth, and make appropriate referrals to Tier 2 or Tier 3 services. 

Continuum of Coordination 

The focus of this evaluation was on the nature of coordination within sites implementing both SCTG and 

Project AWARE. To conceptualize levels of coordination for this study, the evaluation team examined 

the degree to which training, planning, communication, and organizational structures were 

implemented in separate ways or in a shared manner. The study applied a model that described a 

continuum of coordination ranging from low coordination at the more superficial end to high 

coordination at the more substantive end (Osher 2002). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

6 

• Low coordination involves simple agency interaction, implying agencies are aware of one 

another and interact to provide general information, support, or referral. For example, agency 

staff (e.g., mental health workers or school counselors) may know about each other and, in 

some cases, may even make referrals to each other without in any way altering the way they (or 

their agencies) conduct their business. 

• Moderate coordination involves altering the relationships of independent organizations, staff, or 

resources. This level of coordination involves agency staff working together to plan and conduct 

activities. 

• High coordination involves efforts to unite organizations and people to achieve common goals 

that could not be accomplished by a single individual or an organization acting alone. This level 

of coordination involves four key elements: (1) agreed-on common goals, (2) shared 

responsibility, (3) mutual accountability for success, and (4) shared resources. 

The categories of coordination used in this report may be conceptualized as existing along a continuum 

(Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2. The continuum of coordination

Exhibit reads: The continuum of coordination reflects progressive activities from simple interaction and 

information sharing at the low end toward agreed-on common goals and shared responsibility at the high end. 

This conceptualization served as a foundation to understand and code the responses that respondents 

provided to the interview questions posed for this study. Coordination ratings were independent of the 

types of activities described. The same activity, such as training, communication, or establishing a team, 

could be done in a way reflecting low, moderate, or high coordination. For example, if respondents 

described communication as primarily consisting of referrals or information sharing, this then 

constituted a low level of coordination. If communication involved shaping messages together with staff 

Low 

Coordination

- Interaction

- Sharing 

information

- Referrals

Moderate 

Coordination

- Altered 

relationships

- Working together

- Planning events, 

activities

High Coordination

- Agreed-on common 

goals

- Shared responsibility

- Mutual 

accountability for 

success

- Shared resources
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

7 

from another office, then a moderate level of coordination would be present. If communication involved 

jointly preparing a presentation or brief describing practices or outcomes that offices worked toward 

together, then a high level of coordination was present. These three levels of coordination served as 

ratings of 1, 3, and 5 on a 5-point coordination scale. A rating of 2 was given to sites for which activities 

were characterized as falling between low and moderate levels. A rating of 4 was given to sites falling 

between moderate and high coordination. The rubric used by study raters to assign coordination levels 

is described in Appendix A. 

Study Methods

Study Sample 

All states and school districts that were awarded both an SCTG and a Project AWARE grant were invited 

to participate. Twenty-seven school districts and nine states were eligible and all participated. Study 

participants were geographically distributed across 18 states (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3. Geographic distribution of district and state grantees

Exhibit reads: State and district grantees participating in this study came from 18 states across the United States. 

Note: The map created for this study used free software from Mapchart.net.

Data Sources

Information for this study came from two data sources: extant data and semistructured interviews with 

project staff. Each data source is described in this section. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

8 

Extant Data

Federal program offices for the SCTG and Project AWARE programs supplied extant data as they became 

available. The grantees were required to submit the following data as part of their participation in the 

federal grant programs: 

• Grantee applications and coordination plans: Applications and coordination plans provide 

contextual information and grantees’ proposed plans for coordination across grant programs. 

• Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) data: Grantees report GPRA performance 

measures established to assess the outcomes of the SCTG annually. 

The GPRA data provide information about grantees’ progress toward meeting SCTG goals. One indicator 

for district grantees was the number and percentage of schools implementing MTSS with fidelity (to the 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [PBIS] Technical Assistance Center’s fidelity instrument). 

Data from this indicator were used to examine the association between coordination and MTSS 

implementation fidelity. Appendix B presents descriptive data on GPRA indicators for the grantees in 

this study.

Staff Interviews 

At each of the 36 sites, the analysis team interviewed between three and six respondents, including the 

project directors for each grant. In total, 136 people across the state and district groups (97 district staff 

and 39 state staff) participated. All participant recruitment and interviews began with the project 

director identified in extant documents. Project directors are generally district office staff members who 

coordinate MTSS or work in the field of student support, such as counseling or school social work (or, in 

some districts, special education). We interviewed the project directors of both programs (in one of the 

nine states and in 11 of the 27 districts, one individual served as the project director for both grants) and 

asked them to recommend one to three potential staff to interview who fit the following characteristics: 

• The most directly involved staff in coordinating activities with or collaborating with the other 

federal grant

• Staff actively engaged in implementing grant activities 

We generally interviewed three people from district-level sites and four people at state-level sites. 

Interviews were recorded (with permission), and audio files were transcribed for analysis. 

Analysis Methods

The approach to analyzing the data consisted of coding the extant data (grantee applications and 

coordination plans) to gain a better understanding of the context and planned activities for each grantee 

and coding all interview transcripts. 

State- and District-Level Analyses

Data were analyzed separately for district- and state-level grantees. Although the SCTGs awarded were 

the same size and duration at the district and state levels ($750,000 per year for five years), the Project 

AWARE grants differed. State grants were much larger than the district grants (up to $1,950,000 per 

year for states versus $50,000 per year for districts) and longer (five years versus two years). In addition, 

the Project AWARE state grants mandated the creation of a state management team, which includes 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

9 

representatives from education, state mental or behavioral health agencies, state criminal or juvenile 

justice agencies, youth and family representatives, and representatives from districts participating in the 

state grant. The explicit purpose of this organizational structure was to promote coordination. For this 

reason, ratings of coordination for state grantees were hypothesized to be higher than for district 

grantees. 

Data Coding 

The coding scheme for this study was based on the study questions. It included several high-level 

constructs, followed by low-level variables nested within them. The analysis team organized and coded 

data using NVivo analysis software, adhering to widely accepted qualitative methodological practices 

(Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2013). These included assessing interrater agreement and establishing 

standards of evidence. Appendix C presents a series of tables showing the counts of codes related to the 

state and district findings for each research question. 

To promote the integrity of the study findings, all study staff people were trained on the coding system. 

Interrater agreement was established by having all coders independently code a sample of the same 

document or transcript and then examine the results collectively. In cases of disagreement, the team 

referenced any applicable data sources and refined the code definition in question. This process was 

repeated until interrater reliability of at least 80 percent agreement was achieved. As coding proceeded, 

new constructs emerged and, with team consensus, were added to the coding scheme. 

To develop the findings, the team integrated data across sources using standards of evidence to arrive at 

the results. That is, specific criteria had to be met to characterize a finding as reportable. Building on 

interrater agreement established during coding, groups of coded statements needed to (1) be salient to 

the research question, (2) unambiguously fit a specific category, and 3) be conspicuous in its prevalence 

across sites (e.g., consistent across all sites, prominent among states but not districts, or the reverse). 

For example, when asked about the advantages to grant coordination, comments concerning increased 

efficiency were found to be directly related to the research question of perceived value of coordination, 

fit the category of increased efficiency, and were reported by more than half of the states and districts. 

Throughout the process, the team engaged in ongoing consensus building on key themes and findings. 

When interviewees within a site disagreed with each other, we accepted each statement as valid to that 

respondent’s perspective and developed findings for a site based on a combination of individual and 

consensus statements. The study team documented the analytic process by maintaining a record of 

coding queries and kept a record of changes made to the coding scheme. 

Coordination Ratings

The study team constructed a rubric that produced an overall rating on a 5-point scale for each grantee 

site along the coordination continuum. Appendix A presents technical details of the rubric and sample 

quotes reflecting different points on the continuum. The lead analyst rated each interviewee’s 

responses about training, planning, communication, and shared organizational structures for the degree 

to which information, execution, and accountability were shared for these activities (see Exhibit 4). The 

ratings were based only on respondents’ description of coordination activities. Perceived value of 

coordination and challenges resulting from coordination were outcomes of coordination, not a basis for 

ratings. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

10

Exhibit 4. Levels of the coordination continuum, typical activities, and representative quotes

Level of coordination Typical activities Representative quote

Low

(rating of 1)

Interaction among grantee 

staff

“There’s kind of community of practice too because 

some districts share that information and we’re part of 

the PBIS Coalition so you get together with a lot of folks 

and share things.” [SCTG respondent] Sharing information across 

agencies

Referrals for mental health 

or other services

Moderate 

(rating of 3)

Altered relationships

among agencies

“Most of it was information sharing across the grants 

and making sure we understood what was happening in 

our partner districts . . . and how we might be able to 

offer a Youth Mental Health First Aid training through 

Project AWARE for those staff.” [Project AWARE 

respondent]

Working together across 

agencies

Planning events and

activities together

High 

(rating of 5)

Agreed-on common goals “When we’re doing our annual strategic planning for my 

department, although [name] and behavioral health, 

which encompasses [Project] AWARE, is technically a 

separate sub-department from mine, we come together 

to do that planning and talk. We set our vision for what 

our charge was for the year and sort of on board stars so 

to speak, what we’re working towards this year in terms 

of our efforts. We set that together. We sat down and 

spent hours going through what would schools look like 

and sound like and feel like? What are some of the 

different metrics and data points?” [SCTG respondent]

Shared responsibility

Mutual accountability for 

success

Shared resources

After each interviewee’s statements were scored for the degree to which they reflected coordination, 

an average was computed for that respondent. Next, the scores for all respondents within a grantee site 

were averaged. This average score represented the degree of coordination for the grantee site.3

 

Study Limitations

The findings reported for this study are limited to some degree by the fact that although respondents were 

identified for interviews based on their role in coordination, not all respondents were knowledgeable 

about work and coordination activities occurring beyond their immediate responsibilities. In some 

instances, personnel most knowledgeable about coordination were no longer employed by a site.

 

3 Site coordination scores based on arithmetic averages across all respondents in a site were reviewed. For nine of 36 ratings,

these scores were adjusted based on other evidence from the interview. Appendix C contains examples of the evidence used 

to adjust the ratings.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

11

Findings: Coordination Between

SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees

SCTG grantees coordinating with mental health services through Project AWARE must confront the long 

history of disciplinary separation between schooling and mental health. Mental health services in 

schools are traditionally separate from instruction, even from special education (Atkins et al. 2010). The 

vision for coordination advanced through Now Is the Time is that mental wellness and access to services

is promoted by not only a few adults in a school but also all staff. A district SCTG director reflected on 

the ways that Project AWARE helped him achieve his MTSS goals, noting how novel it was for school 

staff to address mental health issues: 

We learned that more than 20 percent of our kids may need additional help with mental 

health. We’ve trained over 600 people and referred over 2,000 kids that we would not 

have seen. We saw a decrease in high school [discipline] referrals. That was our biggest 

“aha” in secondary [schools]. 

When a state or a district has both an SCTG and a Project AWARE grant, coordination involves, at a 

minimum, meetings. When implemented with fidelity, MTSS involves a leadership team that meets 

regularly to assess needs and select interventions, ensure implementation fidelity, manage resources, 

and use data to make decisions. In the absence of Project AWARE, respondents indicated that these 

teams did not always include a mental health representative. For example, in some districts, counseling, 

social work, and other mental health supports were administratively separate from MTSS, which often

was housed in either the academic office or special education. By integrating Project AWARE with SCTG, 

mental health staff “crossed the aisle” and joined the leadership or implementation team for MTSS. 

District grantees reported that MTSS served as the overarching organizational framework into which 

their Project AWARE work fit.

The first question addressed by this study was how grantees achieved this coordination. In this chapter, 

key findings about the nature of the coordination are described, and examples from interviews are 

provided. 

How SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees Coordinated

Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated planning, communication, 

and the development of shared 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 

21 of 27 school districts and all nine states (see Exhibit 5). This strategy involved incorporating content 

from one grant into the training of the other or training staff from each grant program together. For 

example, training SCTG personnel on Project AWARE’s YMHFA would represent joint training. The 

interview respondents cited a variety of training topics in which both instructional staff implementing 

MTSS and mental health staff implementing Project AWARE were both trained, such as traumainformed educational approaches, restorative justice practices, and social and emotional learning. A 

Project AWARE staffer stated, “We started giving out MTSS information within the Youth Mental Health 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

12

First Aid training so that people could connect the dots and see how [MTSS and mental health] came 

together.” 

Exhibit 5. Coordination strategies and mechanisms for MTSS reported by school districts and states, 

2016–17

Exhibit reads: Eighty-one percent (n = 22) of the school districts reported that they used joint training among their 

coordination activities for MTSS. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of coordination strategies are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall).

Coordinated planning was mentioned by 14 of 27 districts and seven of nine states, suggesting that 

coordination began before the grant activities were implemented. Coordinated planning may include 

creating or redefining positions; establishing or revising the scope of work for leadership teams; 

engaging community stakeholders, families, and youth; scheduling training; supervising implementation; 

and monitoring data to promote alignment and minimize duplication across school services (e.g., 

bullying prevention, social skills development, attendance support, and school climate). Rather than 

establish new teams, the work of existing teams often was reframed. For most grantees in this sample, 

this meant using the Project AWARE mental health trainings to expand the knowledge and skills of 

existing MTSS teams so that mental wellness could be addressed along with student behavior. A state 

Project AWARE coordinator reported the following: 

We’ve got our state management team with representation from those various groups 

as well as other agencies. I think a lot of what we’re trying to do is [to] figure out how to

ride the coattails of all of those efforts but also to really bring it together so that you 

have less replication of efforts and a better understanding of what everyone is doing and 

[the] alignment of this work.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

13

Communication (defined as any information sharing) 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. Of the 27 districts, 14 highlighted 

communication as a coordination strategy, and all nine states noted that communication was one of 

their means of coordinating. 

At the most fundamental level, communication involved sharing information across grant programs to 

increase awareness of grant activities. This involved updates about the progress of the grant programs 

or providing information about scheduled trainings. 

At some sites, grantees had more in-depth conversations about the work of the two grant programs. A 

state SCTG supervisor described the content of their meetings: 

We look at . . . how both of our efforts are working toward an integrated MTSS in which 

schools don’t see school culture work or mental health support as ancillary, but they see

it as really a fundamental aspect of their structures for working towards student 

achievement.

The category of shared organizational structures was defined as using a staff position, team, or office to 

coordinate information, work, and responsibility across two or more organizations. Examples included 

the intentional overlap of staff positions across grants, a dedicated team or committee that involved 

representatives from the two federal grants, and external partnerships (e.g., community groups and

mental health clinics). Eleven of 27 districts and all nine states indicated that they used shared 

organizational structures to coordinate work across grants. For example, a state-level Project AWARE 

respondent said, “We run an executive team, whereby the leaders of Safe Schools, AWARE, and School 

Climate Transformation meet regularly, weekly even, to talk about how our initiatives overlap.”
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

14

How One Sample State Coordinated Through Joint Training, Communication, and Shared 

Organizational Structures

In this state, the SCTG and the Project AWARE grant were coordinated through a state management 

team, with representatives from relevant agencies, and an internal integration team, with 

representatives from both state-level grants and each district served by those grants. The state 

management team met monthly and included staff from multiple state education departments 

(Superintendent’s office, Health Enhancement, Neglected/Delinquent and Homeless), multiple state 

health and human services departments (Early Childhood Services, the Children’s Mental Health 

Bureau, Addictive and Mental Disorders Division/Suicide Prevention, and Child and Family Services), 

as well as the Youth Services Division of the State Supreme Court and representatives from networks 

of community-based service providers. In addition, representatives from the superintendents’ offices 

and grant leaders from all participating districts were part of the state management team. 

The internal integration team was a local innovation and involved leaders of the SCTG and the Project 

AWARE grant who met weekly. Monthly, the meeting included representatives from the Indian 

Education division, Homeless coordinators, Title I, Health Enhancement, and Special Education. The 

grant leaders reported that including division administrators were necessary because some decisions 

required their authority, so these meetings were scheduled on the same day as division administrator 

meetings so that those leaders would more likely attend. 

Another mechanism was through joint training: the state encouraged MTSS personnel at the state 

and district levels to complete Project AWARE YMHFA training. Enrollment in trainings related to 

behavior and mental health was offered to grantee districts from both federal programs before any 

remaining seats were opened statewide. 

The state promoted coordination at the local level by facilitating communication through a 

community of practice for district staff engaged in work related to school safety and behavioral 

health. For example, the community of practice that addressed Tier 3 supports included staff across 

offices who worked in special education, crisis mental health, Medicaid, corrections, inpatient 

psychiatry, group homes, and foster care. 

The state also used special events as opportunities to promote coordination. For example, the 

summer MTSS Institute included staff from a diverse set of state offices, including Common Core, 

Special Education, Safety and Health Enhancement, Project AWARE, the Indian Education Division, 

School Improvement Grant staff, and the Children’s Mental Health Bureau. 

Most grantees were involved in at least a moderate level of coordination. Overall, states

exhibited a higher level of coordination activities than did districts. 

For more than half of the study sample (16 of 27 districts and all nine states; 69 percent overall), scores on 

the coordination continuum indicated that at least a moderate level of coordination existed across the 

federal grant projects (see Exhibit 6). At a moderate level of coordination, 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 moderate range interacted and communicated, and in 

some instances shared training, but no clear statement showed that staff were working toward common 

goals with shared responsibility and mutual accountability. (See Appendix A for a discussion of the 

methodology used to determine these ratings.)
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

15

Exhibit 6. Distribution of levels of coordination across SCTG and Project AWARE district and state

grantees, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: No district was rated high for coordination; one of nine states was rated high on the coordination 

continuum. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

All state grantees were judged, based on their descriptions of training, planning, communication, and 

shared organizational structures, to have been engaged in at least a moderate level of coordination. 

Because the state Project AWARE grants mandated the establishment of a state management team to 

coordinate work across agencies, implementation of these grants as intended would necessarily involve 

a higher level of coordination. The state management teams, as operationalized by Project AWARE, 

included youth and family representatives as well as representatives from the state office of mental or 

behavioral health, the state juvenile justice agency, and participating districts. Engaging additional 

partners, such as child welfare, early childhood, and faith-based organizations was encouraged. The 

team’s purpose was to develop and implement a coordination and integration plan for the leadership 

and management to the state’s efforts to promote safe schools and healthy students. For example, one 

state SCTG project director stated, 

Our core team for Project AWARE has three people on the team, and I have [one other 

person] and myself. The five of us, along with our state PBIS coordinator, meet weekly, 

and we meet for an extended time weekly to be sure that we are coordinating together, 

that we’re continually talking about the integration.

Staff within a site tended to describe coordination fairly consistently. When rating the same activities, 

such as training or organizational structures, 14 of 23 districts (61 percent) and eight of eight states4 had 

individual respondent coordination scores that were within one point of each other. In all cases where a 

4 The totals of districts and states for the consistency finding were less than the totals of districts and states in the study 

because not all respondents provided information that allowed us to code coordination. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

16

discrepancy occurred, it was based on only one coordination activity described (of up to four that could 

receive scores), and the difference in ratings was never larger than two points. 

Differences across grantees in the level of coordination were associated only with whether the grantee 

was a state or a school district. The average coordination rating for states on a scale of 1 to 5 was 3.7; 

for districts, it was 2.6. The study team examined other factors gathered from grant applications to 

explain variation across sites, such as a history of prior collaboration, district size, urbanicity, having the 

same person serve as the project director of both grants, or being a state or a district-only Project 

AWARE grantee. None of these other factors explained the variation in levels of coordination. 

Plans for Sustaining Coordination 

Most grantees (89 percent) reported using capacity-building mechanisms to sustain 

coordination across their grants. 

All grantee sites reported that they were planning to continue the work of their grants beyond their 

funded period of performance. When planning to sustain coordination, grantees described a set of 

activities collectively described as “capacity building” — that is, grantees sought to ensure that sufficient 

numbers of staff had received training in the fundamental components of the grant so that they could 

continue practices (and support newer staff) when funds were exhausted. Capacity building — which most 

often involved providing professional development for staff in MTSS and/or school mental health — was 

the most common district (24 of 27) and state (eight of nine) plan for sustainability (see Exhibit 7). A 

district-level SCTG respondent said, 

We have plans to continue training all of our interns, make sure that all of our [MTSS] 

coaches and all of our mental health counselors continue to get [trained in] Youth 

Mental Health First Aid. . . . We plan on continuing to do those trainings [after the 

grant].

Two state grantees specifically mentioned that the broader vision of integrating mental health with 

MTSS was the focus of sustainability efforts, not only the work of the grants. Grantees also noted other 

possible pathways to sustainability, including establishing a permanent committee or team or 

establishing a permanent position with the responsibility of coordination. For example, a common 

district practice was establishing a districtwide MTSS leadership team that was expected to continue 

even after funding ended. Moving positions from grant funding to “hard” district funding was a goal for 

half of the grantees. Almost half of the grantees (44 percent) stated that they planned to apply for 

additional grants to support the work of integrating MTSS and mental health. One district SCTG grantee 

reported that hosting a regional MTSS meeting provided a source of funding for the district’s ongoing 

work toward building safe school climates. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

17

Exhibit 7. Plans for sustainability as reported by school districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Eighty-nine percent (n = 24) of the school districts described capacity building as a plan for 

sustaining collaboration after grant funding ends. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of sustainability plans are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

Coordination of Funding

Most districts reported keeping the funding of their grants separate, whereas states 

reported combining the funding across their grant programs. 

Of the 27 districts, 18 explained that they did not coordinate funding across the two grants to achieve 

project goals. Based on respondent reports, the small size ($50,000 per year) and limited scope of the 

Project AWARE district grants appeared to contribute to this separation of funding: Project AWARE 

grants most often funded YMHFA instructor training, books, travel, and stipends, plus travel and 

materials for the staff who received training. The SCTGs were larger (up to $750,000 per year) and could 

cover staff positions, professional development, and local and national conferences. 

At the state level, the Project AWARE grants were larger (up to $1.95 million per year), and seven of the 

nine states reported combining funding across the two grant programs. For example, although state 

Project AWARE grants funded comprehensive safe schools work in three districts each, several states 

used SCTG and other grant funds to extend MTSS to additional districts, using strategies such as 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

18

countywide leadership teams. In this way, SCTG funds were combined with other funding sources to 

achieve the state’s goal of supporting MTSS statewide. A state-level Project AWARE respondent said, 

Obviously, you have your independent funding streams. We know what Congress has 

appropriated for what and we know what rules we have to follow, et cetera. We also 

know that there are many opportunities to braid our funding to enhance our systems. 

We individually fund the pieces we need to individually fund, but then we look at crosscollaboration opportunities to braid funding, to strengthen these other systems, and to 

meet the ultimate need at the district level. 

Coordination Reflected in Grantee Applications

The SCTG applications did not provide many details about what coordination would 

entail or how sites would work with other projects. 

All grantees indicated that their SCTG application addressed the competitive preference priority for 

coordination with Project AWARE or other funding opportunities. However, beyond reporting that

coordination would take place, coding and analysis of the grant applications showed that grantees 

generally did not provide details about what this coordination would entail or how they would work 

with other projects. When specific coordination mechanisms were noted, they most commonly included 

training staff (such as training on the YMHFA curriculum) to build capacity or share resources across 

projects, such as having a single coordinator or a team with representatives from both grants. The lack 

of detail provided suggested that coordination might not have been well planned in advance; one lesson 

learned reported by grantees was that they wished they had planned and begun coordination sooner.

More states than districts reported that the competitive preference points affected the 

decision to submit or the content of their grant application. 

Fewer than half (13 of 27) of the districts said that the availability of competitive preference points 

affected their grant application in some way, but seven of nine states indicated that these points 

mattered. In these states, respondents stated that the points did indeed make a difference, such as by 

encouraging sites that were already coordinating to submit or by developing new coordination 

structures and plans. A state-level SCTG respondent said, 

I think by having that, it also forced some discussion. So when we were writing the 

School Climate Grant and then [name] was doing with the AWARE, we were talking 

about, well, what is it from both of these grants that we can make sure there’s 

connection in the application? So, I think it set the stage, and it helped out right from the 

very beginning. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

19

Types of Personnel Involved in Coordination 

Staff interviewed for this study, based on their role in coordination for the SCTG and 

the Project AWARE grant, were primarily based in offices focused on student support 

services (in contrast to instruction). 

The individuals selected for interviews were recruited based on the project director’s report of their 

involvement in coordination efforts. To explore the types of personnel involved in coordination, the 

office names and titles of these staff were examined. 

The offices supporting the SCTG and the Project AWARE grant were categorized as reflecting either the 

“instructional” or “student services” domains. Sample titles for instructional leaders included Associate 

Superintendent, Director of Instruction, Director of Schools, Director of Learning, and Principal. Student 

services titles included Student Discipline and Support Services Director, School Culture Support 

Specialist, Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Students, Director of Social and Emotional Learning, and 

School Counseling and Career Development Specialist. For some grantees, insufficient information 

existed to make this determination. For SCTG district grants, 15 of 20 leaders (75 percent) were on the 

student support side of the education agency; for Project AWARE grants, 12 of 19 (63 percent) were in 

student support offices. At the state level, five of six SCTG leaders and all seven Project AWARE leaders 

were in roles focused on student support. 

Coordination in a High-Coordination District 

District Background

This rural district, with 56 percent of its roughly 3,000 students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch, 

reported in its grant application and in interviews that it has demonstrated successful collaboration with its 

surrounding community to build capacity for improving the lives of youth and families. For example, the district

successfully established one of the first Department of Juvenile Justice/Educational Day Treatment facilities in 

the region, created the first drug court in the area (coordinated with county government), and enacted the first 

student drug-testing policy in the state (which has since been replicated statewide).

The district stated in its SCTG application that grant funding would enable it to address school climate and the 

mental health needs of students, reduce negative behaviors in youth, and increase protective factors. The 

district’s plan was to approach this through the schools and the community in partnership.

Key Features of Coordination

The district conceptualized coordination of the SCTG and the Project AWARE grant in its SCTG application as a 

way “to create an evidence-based matrix of services to address all youth and families in this community to work 

to prevent, identify, and remedy student social, emotional, and behavioral needs.” Interviews with the Director 

of Support Services, the Director of Student Services, and the Communications Endorsement Facilitator

described a multifaceted collaboration process, anchored by joint training, communication, and shared 

organizational structures. Training in YMHFA was offered to people well beyond the school, including 

firefighters, family members, and other community partners. 

Interviewees explained that coordination occurred through collective partnerships between the school district 

and stakeholders, such as community agencies, law enforcement, education, faith-based organizations, civic 

group leaders, and parents. The district developed communication mechanisms through media channels, such 

as television, radio, video production, and social media, so that students, families, and the community would be

aware of the work and accomplishments of the SCTG and Project AWARE. 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

21

Findings: The Value of Coordination

Implementation science has established that innovations are more likely to be sustained when they 

address the concerns and improve the lives of the implementers (Hall and Hord 2001). Therefore, one of 

the study questions focused on respondents’ perceptions about the value of coordination. Specifically, 

grantees were asked about (1) accomplishments because of coordination that would not have been 

realized otherwise, (2) any long-term changes because of coordination, (3) the effect of coordination on 

the implementation of grant activities and interventions, and (4) the advantages of coordination. 

Overall, respondents in sites with an SCTG and a Project AWARE grant described positive perceptions of 

the value of working on schoolwide behavior and access to mental health services simultaneously. The

interview respondents reported that coordination of the two grants produced benefits beyond what 

either grant on its own could have achieved. A district-level SCTG respondent said,

There’s been just an entire systemwide focus on providing social, emotional, and 

behavioral support for our students and realizing how important that is to their 

academic success. That systemwide change in our district would not have happened 

without the support from these grants. 

Benefits of Grant 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). 

When Project AWARE and SCTG projects work together, the focus of the overlapping efforts is the 

integration of a schoolwide behavioral support framework with a systematic approach to identifying 

students in need of mental health services. This integration of efforts produced a positive, safe school 

climate and mental health that the interview respondents identified as the primary accomplishment of 

grantees’ coordination efforts (20 of 27 districts and seven of nine states). Grantees at both the district 

and state levels indicated that with both grants, they could enhance interventions for students, create 

teams, and meet students’ needs more effectively than they could with either grant alone (see

Exhibit 8). 

Data analysis showed that this integration allowed school districts to enhance student interventions

focused on addressing student misbehavior by identifying and taking steps to repair harm caused by a 

behavior, rather than simply punishing the student. When evidence-based behavioral interventions that 

emphasize responsibility and skill development are in place and student behavior improves, students 

and teachers can attend to academics rather than deal with behavioral issues (Bradshaw, Mitchell, and 

Leaf 2010). In addition, behavioral interventions may be more appropriately selected and administered

(Horner et al. 2009). One district Project AWARE leader said, 

There are certainly lots of benefits to collaborating and coordinating because we want to 

make sure that students get the support that they need and that we are not, for 

example, over-identifying kids who need IEPs [individualized education programs] 

because we don’t have anything else in place.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

22

Exhibit 8. Accomplishments resulting from grant coordination reported by school districts and states, 

2016–17

Exhibit reads: Seventy-four percent (n = 20) of the school districts described the integration of school climate and 

mental health as an accomplishment resulting from grant coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of accomplishments are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

At the state level, respondents also noted that through integration, they could implement more student 

support programs and create new and better products through coordination across the grants. One 

state described a website of resources related to school mental health that included a framework with 

best practices, mental health screening tools, and example memoranda of understanding. In another 

state, a Project AWARE respondent summarized the way that coordination allowed them to integrate 

school climate and mental health: 

You could have a school transformation grant all on its own. You could have an AWARE 

grant all on its own. But I don’t feel like you would get as much accomplished if they 

were separate as we have having them together. Just being able to understand the 

mental health of students and staff is such a huge component to any part of school 

culture. So, to be able to work those two pieces together and to connect them has been 

really valuable for our staff. All of our PBIS pieces and trainings have mental health 

components to them. All of our districtwide pieces of information and services and 

resources that we provide all have a mental health aspect to them, which I’m not sure 

that they would have — if we would have had that as much of a focus as we did because 

of the AWARE grant. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

23

Other than the development of better integration of mental health and school climate, 

accomplishments accruing from coordination across the grants identified by both district and state 

respondents included increased awareness of mental health issues, system change, changed 

perspectives, joint training, and better professional relationships (to include both behavior support and 

mental health staff). Several of these categories of responses were the same as those identified as longterm changes resulting from coordination. 

Slightly more than half of the 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 these advantages than were districts.

District and state grantees described the benefits to coordination as including increased efficiency, 

establishing better professional relationships, and working across disciplines (see Exhibit 9). For 

example, increased efficiency or leverage was an advantage of coordination because it allowed the 

alignment of previously separate streams of work so that redundancy and staff burden could be 

minimized and the process of obtaining support could be both easier and better defined. Stronger 

relationships might include establishing or expanding professional networks with community groups or 

feeder schools to meet student needs more effectively. Working across disciplines referred to the value 

of having instructional staff work closely with student support personnel, with each learning from the 

other. 

Efficiency was a benefit noted by 13 of 27 districts and six of nine states. Grantees reported that adding 

mental health to their MTSS frameworks helped schools identify and address student needs more 

swiftly and more fully, without adding extra staff. Grantees found that reducing fragmentation of 

student support resulted in less duplication of effort and smoother operations. 

Stronger relationships, particularly among staff, but also among staff and students also were common 

benefits of coordination identified by 10 of 27 districts and five or nine states. Coordination provided 

opportunities for staff to work with community partners and other staff across disciplines — 

strengthening their professional relationships. Respondents reported that this would not have 

happened had states not received funding for both grant programs. 

One school district Project AWARE director described having common goals between the grants as a 

way of focusing the work on what’s important. 

So just the fact that these two organizations came together and really worked together 

for these two grants to be coordinated and have the collaboration between the two 

grants — I think it’s somewhat unprecedented that this happened, and I think that the 

success that has come out of it should be looked at more often. That instead of having all 

of these different areas to try to combat everything, if you can get people to work 

together and focus on certain things that are really important and collaborate, like these 

two grants have allowed us to do, we would see a lot more success that way. 

For states, a benefit identified with equal frequency as efficiency (six of nine states) was establishing a 

common, yet enhanced, framework that encompassed both MTSS and mental health in schools. State 

staff reported that there was not only efficiency but also power in aligning behavior management and 

mental health within a shared, tiered system. In this way, staff did not feel as if the mental health work 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

24

was one more (separate) thing they had to do; rather, it felt as if attending to students’ mental health 

needs was part of what they were doing anyway. 

School districts and states lower on the continuum of coordination (levels 1 and 2) identified advantages 

resulting from grant coordination, such as greater buy-in or commitment to the aims of the grant, with

the two grants having common goals and having sufficient funding to bring experts to the teachers 

rather than sending teachers elsewhere for training. At high levels of coordination, districts described 

increased efficiency resulting from less duplication of effort, a greater base of professional knowledge 

from the two different grants, and the ability to provide multiple resources (from each grant) to schools.

Respondents from states with high coordination focused on not only having but also sharing resources 

(e.g., people and training) and benefiting from a diversity of strengths and perspectives from two teams. 

Exhibit 9. Advantages to grant coordination reported by school districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Forty-eight percent (n = 13) of the school districts said that increased efficiency was an advantage to 

grant coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of advantages are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

25

More than half of the grantees (58 percent) reported system change as the primary 

long-term change resulting from the coordination of multiple grants. 

Sixteen of 27 districts and five of nine states pointed to system change, or a permanent structural 

change in their organization, as a lasting result of coordination (see Exhibit 10). Sites described system 

changes, including changes in policy (e.g., new staff or teams to conduct community outreach) and a 

general shift in more effectively and coherently addressing the social and emotional needs of students. 

Although interview questions asked specifically about long-term changes, some respondents provided 

examples that could be considered shorter term in nature.

Exhibit 10. Long-term changes resulting from coordination reported by school districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent (n = 16) of the school districts described system change as a long-term change 

associated with grant coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of long-term changes are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

The types of system change varied by state or district status and their level on the continuum of 

coordination. District sites at the lowest level of coordination provided relatively concrete examples of 

system change resulting from the initial implementation of MTSS and YMHFA in their schools, such as 

shifting from a focus on punishing misbehavior in school to teaching and reinforcing positive behavior, 

introducing practices to identify mental health issues, and using peer mediation and other restorative 

justice practices when problems arose. Grantees higher on the continuum (levels 2 and 3) included 

examples of changes such as establishing leadership teams; establishing cross-departmental work 

teams; and having a systemwide focus on social, emotional, and behavioral supports. One district 

reported as a long-term change the embedding of YMHFA training into the professional development 

for all new teachers. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

26

States that were moderate on the continuum of coordination described system changes, such as statelevel prevention and wellness teams working with and providing services to school districts, the 

establishment of mental health work groups, and the emergence of community management teams 

resulting from the collaboration of agencies and community members. States that were high on the 

continuum of coordination reported system changes, such as grant-funded positions becoming 

permanent within districts, the institutionalization of YMHFA training into teacher professional 

development, stronger relationships, and a perspective valuing greater interdependence across offices 

addressing student support. 

Although grantees reported that a relationship between coordination and their 

achievement of fidelity of MTSS implementation, coordination scores were not 

correlated with the percentage of schools achieving MTSS fidelity. 

Coordination between the SCTG and the Project AWARE grant — between teaching and mental health 

more broadly — is expected to support a more fully realized MTSS framework (Barrett et al. 2012). 

Indeed, one item on the Tiered Fidelity Inventory, which many SCTG grantees used to measure and 

report on MTSS fidelity, includes an item asking whether schools use decision rules and multiple sources 

of data to identify students who may require Tier 2 or Tier 3 supports (Algozzine et al. 2014). Project 

AWARE fulfilled this function in schools that use it. A district SCTG staff member stated, “Fidelity isn’t 

possible without coordination.” Other staff pointed to the high degree of complementarity of SCTG and 

Project AWARE goals and indicated that incorporating mental health into MTSS, and having MTSS in 

place to better organize student supports, helps both programs more fully realize their goals. One 

district has gone beyond MTSS fidelity or YMFHA fidelity to look at the fidelity of integration of these 

programs. 

We have a fidelity measure called the Integrated Systems Framework. It looks at

coordination between community service providers and mental health awareness and 

activities in the school and the degree to which that is coordinated [as well as] questions 

about the multi-tiered process and how that works. . . . Prior to that, there was not so 

much emphasis placed on fidelity of integration. It was more fidelity of implementation 

of one grant and fidelity of implementation of the other, but now I think we’re working 

toward fidelity of the integration piece.

To examine the relationship between the fidelity of MTSS implementation and district grantee reports 

on coordination, the study team examined the district GPRA indicator that related to the fidelity with 

which schools were implementing MTSS (more detail about GPRA measures is in Appendix B). All 

grantees were required to use a valid fidelity measurement tool, such as the one provided by the 

Department-funded PBIS OSEP [Office of Special Education Program] Technical Assistance Center to 

measure and monitor fidelity. Grantees reported the percentage of schools in their district 

implementing MTSS with fidelity, with a range of 0 to 100 percent, a mean of 50 percent, and a standard 

deviation of 36 percent. The correlation between district coordination ratings and the percentage of 

schools in that district implementing MTSS with fidelity was -0.12, meaning that there was a very small 

tendency for districts higher in coordination to have a smaller proportion of schools implementing MTSS 

with fidelity. The lack of strong association may be caused by coordination being measured at a district

level and fidelity being measured at the school level. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

27

Factors That Enhanced Grant Coordination

Increased communication was frequently cited as a factor that enhanced coordination

(53 percent of the grantees). 

More than half of the district grantees (53 percent) identified communication as the primary factor that 

enhanced coordination. Communication ranged from regularly scheduled meetings (e.g., quarterly) to 

more informal discussions that gave grantees the opportunity to discuss successes and challenges, 

provide updates, and identify ways in which they could support each other. In some cases, grantees 

created new teams to facilitate ongoing dialogue about their work. Communication between grants was 

further facilitated by factors such as having a preexisting culture of collaboration, having a new 

organizational structure (e.g., housing the grants within the same department or location, having one 

project coordinator for both grants), having a cross-sectional team (i.e., a team that spans several 

departments), and including community organizations in action planning meetings. Regarding the 

existing culture of collaboration, one SCTG respondent described how the shared organizational 

structure supported communication: 

All of the project directors were all housed within student services, and we’re all right 

here on the same floor. And if we have a quick question, it’s not even just picking up the 

phone or sending an e-mail; we can actually physically walk over a few feet [and] have a 

conversation with the other project directors. 

Additional factors that enhanced collaboration included having common goals or other complementary 

grants, having stakeholder buy-in, having a champion or an identified leader for coordination efforts, 

having a strong professional network, and creating a shared organizational structure (see Exhibit 11).
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

28

Exhibit 11. Factors that enhanced coordination as reported by districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent (n = 15) of the school districts described communication as a factor that enhanced 

coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of enhancers are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

29

Value of Coordination in a High-Coordination District

The district reported that being engaged in a wide array of activities to leverage the opportunities provided by 

SCTG and Project AWARE. For example, the training for all school personnel, community agency staff, and 

others interested in YMHFA assisted those who came into contact with students to identify mental health issues 

early. The school district reduced barriers to the training, making it easy to engage in. In addition, all school 

personnel trained in MTSS had the opportunity to learn how to integrate YMHFA into their MTSS framework. In 

this way, managing student behavior and raising concerns about potential risk factors for mental illness were

addressed collaboratively in all the district’s schools. The student support services director described the 

flexibility of this district as follows: 

Our district is willing to loan [trainers] out for the day to come do the training. We set those up at the 

community’s desire. We give them flexible dates. We provide the space. We provide them training 

materials, and we try to remove all those barriers. 

However, it took time for the district to successfully collaborate with stakeholders and help them realize the 

value of YMHFA. For example, when this school district was awarded both grants, the director of support 

services described sharing the news with one of its partners: “I said, ‘Hey, we were funded on the School 

Climate proposal.’ They said, ‘Great, so is that going to be putting weather stations up at the school?’” This 

confusion underscored the need for robust communication activities. Their communications endorsement 

facilitator developed videos, public service announcements, and press releases for newspapers. The student 

support services director underscored the importance of communicating the purpose of and the partnerships 

that develop from grant collaboration and how it fosters buy-in from school staff, students, and other 

stakeholders. She commented,

When you educate people on mental health, the ways that you can help others, you’re changing the 

climate inside your school, making students and staff more aware of issues that may be happening [or]

are most likely happening in their building. Changes in the way that others treat people, and that’s 

what [the] School Climate Transformation Grant is all about. We want to change the way that people 

act in our school. And providing them with the resources to do that is just a partnership.

Having teams from both grant programs coordinate their work and services across all eight schools required the 

team members to allocate time to meet once every two months as an advisory council. During these meetings, 

everyone in attendance was encouraged to discuss successes and raise any concerns about students or issues in 

the school(s). As a result, coordination continued smoothly, staff embraced innovative ideas, and 

communication flowed easily among all those involved with the grants. 

According to the interviewees, the coordination of both grants also contributed to better recognition of

students’ needs, improved data collection related to school discipline, and refined data-sharing practices. 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

31

Findings: Challenges and Lessons Learned

In many districts and schools, educators implement, sustain, and evaluate multiple innovations, 

initiatives, programs, or practices at the same time. Not only MTSS and mental health but also bullying 

and violence prevention programs, restorative justice practices, and trauma-informed care

programming may be concurrently implemented. Challenges inherent in this process include the 

potential for redundancy, misalignment, ineffective implementation, and excess burden on human and 

financial resources. Interviews asked about challenges and lessons learned from the implementation 

experience. 

This chapter first describes the broad challenges that grantees reported experiencing when 

implementing their grants. Next, grantees identified the factors that inhibited coordination once efforts 

to work together were underway. In addition, findings regarding the extent to which grantees received 

federal support for their coordination efforts are presented. The chapter concludes by describing the 

lessons that grantees learned.

Challenges to Grant Implementation

Nearly all grantees (89 percent) reported securing buy-in from principals, teachers, and 

district or state colleagues as their primary challenge to coordination.

When asked what challenges they faced in doing the work of their grant, grantees cited buy-in at both 

the district (25 of 27) and state (seven of nine) levels (see Exhibit 12). The term buy-in was defined as 

securing the commitment or willing participation of others in the grant’s activities, whether internal 

staff or representatives of other groups or agencies. Lack of buy-in was attributed to several factors, 

including resistance to change, general concerns that these initiatives would simply create more work, a 

lack of awareness and understanding among community members about the relevance of the trainings, 

and mind-sets and values regarding the importance of focusing on mental health or addressing behavior 

problems in new ways. For example, one Project AWARE respondent reported: 

When we’re asking behavior and mental health, a lot of times that buy-in is very 

challenging. People will always step up to the plate to do something for an academic 

need, but getting the community of educators to see that the behavior and mental 

health piece are essential because really, without that, academics can’t go forward — 

that was another challenge.

The lack of buy-in also had implications for the training, particularly for the YMHFA training, which 

required eight hours. As one Project AWARE respondent stated, “Principals simply were not willing to 

give up [eight hours] of teacher development staff time to one topic because they have many, many 

other topics that have to be discussed.” 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

32

Exhibit 12. Challenges to grant coordination reported by school districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Ninety-three percent (n = 25) of the school districts said that securing buy-in was a challenge to 

grant coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of challenges are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

In addition, when school or district leaders did not buy in to these programs, little accountability was 

evident to ensure that the grant was meeting its goals (which included improving attendance; reducing 

disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and expulsions; and implementing MTSS with fidelity). One district 

SCTG leader described this challenge as follows: 

I think the biggest challenge has been working with administrators, really trying to 

change hearts and minds so that they have the courage and the willingness to try these 

things, to put these things into place and to kindly put the pressure on their staff to 

implement these [changes].

In some instances, buy-in increased organically during the grant. As the first staff were trained, they 

could report to their peers about whether the initiative was worthwhile and help bring others on board. 

Grantees also engaged in several strategies to increase buy-in and engagement, such as educating
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

33

stakeholders about how the work was related to academic achievement. Other strategies included 

leveraging existing relationships within schools and districts, inviting representatives from community 

organizations to participate in team meetings, and sharing success stories. 

Geographic location also was cited as a challenge by respondents in the two rural districts. Here, 

respondents reported that geographic conditions (e.g., roads that were susceptible to flooding) and the 

size of their coverage area made it difficult to reach certain populations. This also made it difficult to 

recruit participants for training because some trainees had to travel a long distance to get to the training 

site. 

Additional challenges identified by district and state grantees included limited resources, the 

eight-hour training time required for the YMHFA workshop, organizational changes, 

requirements or the lack thereof regarding working across departments or offices, and a lack of 

common goals (see Exhibit 12). Challenges were distributed across districts and states at all 

levels of the continuum of coordination, with sites rated as having low, moderate, and high 

levels of coordination each reporting limited resources as a challenge.

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.

Respondents were asked both what enhanced and what inhibited coordination in their sites. The most 

commonly reported inhibiting factor overall was a lack of resources (see Exhibit 13). The resource that was 

most limited, according to respondents, was time. Challenges with time were related to training (e.g.,

YMHFA), collaboration, and implementation. First, grantees indicated that the time required for the 

YMHFA training sometimes posed a challenge to recruiting participants. As noted previously, the training 

was eight hours in length and was therefore difficult to integrate into schools’ existing professional 

development plans. Grantees also noted that most staff were trying to manage multiple responsibilities, 

which made it difficult to find the time to coordinate. For example, one SCTG respondent stated, 

Initially what inhibited the collaboration was time. We had to make a decision that we 

were going to intentionally create time and space for the work because our schedules 

were so different. And then what aided the work was just realizing that we were on the 

same page, we wanted the same outcomes, just had to intentionally create the time and 

space to do the work. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

34

Exhibit 13. Factors that inhibited grant coordination as reported by school districts and states, 2016–17

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent (n = 16) of the school districts said that limited resources inhibited coordination. 

Note: Definitions for all categories of inhibitors are in Appendix C. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017 (n = 27 districts and 9 states, or 36 grantees overall). 

At the state level, grantees more commonly reported that the lack of common goals and understanding 

was an inhibitor to collaboration. According to one Project AWARE respondent,

I think the only way that collaboration for us was inhibited is in having some murky 

understandings of what the outcomes or expectations were. It’s hard to feel like what 

you’ve done was effective or done in a timely fashion when you’re not entirely sure of all 

the goals. So, we know individually and locally what we want and what our schools 

need. When we look at that in the context of the measurable outcomes for a grant and 

the expectations for each grant under the federal programming, in the beginning the

direction seemed to change quite a bit. So, it was hard to move forward when the rules 

keep changing. That inhibits collaboration because how do we work together to make it 

better or to do it better or faster when we’re not sure what game we’re playing yet? 

Differing philosophical or theoretical approaches also inhibited coordination. For example, one 

respondent reported difficulties integrating PBIS and mental health: 

Marrying the two has been difficult when we have lacked the same knowledge. In PBIS, 

we are very systems oriented, and we are having a difficult time with our districts to 

express how to build mental health in systematically. They are still used to having colocated rather than collaborative [services]. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

35

Federal Support for Grant Coordination

Grantees reported that federal officials expected coordination across grants, and about 

half (53 percent) reported receiving federal support specifically designed to help them 

achieve this goal. 

Grantees acknowledged that coordination was expected. This was communicated by federal agencies in 

several ways, beginning with the application phase, through which grantees received additional points 

for providing a coordination plan. Grantee staff reported that their program monitors provided them

with resources and helped them make local contacts. Thirteen of 27 districts and six of nine state

grantees had respondents who indicated that the funding agencies provided direct support for 

coordination across grants. The support described by these respondents included engaging in 

conversations with grantees to help them reflect on their coordination plans, providing feedback and 

suggestions, and following up on progress. The annual meetings held by the funding agencies also 

served as a mechanism through which grantees received support. Specifically, these meetings allowed 

grantees to connect with their counterparts in other districts and states and learn more about how 

others approached the coordination of multiple grants. 

A relatively high number of districts had at least one respondent (20 of 27)5 who was unable to answer 

questions about the extent to which the funding agencies supported coordination among the grants 

(but only three of nine states that were asked did not know). One district respondent reported no 

federal support for coordination, beyond prioritizing it during the application phase. As one respondent 

noted, 

It’s clear that they have recognition of the fact that these projects are connected. They 

take pride in that; like, I’ve noticed when we go to the annual School Climate 

Transformation Grant team meetings that there is always that recognition of the 

collaboration with AWARE. But I think that to a certain extent, we have been encouraged 

to find the mechanisms for coordination and integration. I can’t honestly say that there’s 

been a clear directive from either AWARE or School Climate Transformation on how 

that’s to be done.

At the state level, respondents described varying levels of federal support for their coordination efforts. 

This included holding events or conferences that brought staff from both grants together, providing 

technical assistance (TA) from TA providers (e.g., from the PBIS Technical Assistance Center, 

brainstorming and problem solving), having conference calls during which participants shared examples 

of how they were coordinating, facilitating connections with other sites, and providing resources. In 

general, respondents found this support to be helpful. According to one respondent, “I think that they 

have helped in supporting [coordination] by being able to provide events that would bring both of the 

grant partners together.” However, most state grantees indicated that they would like to see more 

coordination and communication between the two funding agencies. For example, a respondent at one 

site reported, 

I feel we’ve gotten good support from both of the grants, from both School Climate 

Transformation and from Project AWARE. But it doesn’t always feel like that support, the 

5 Grantees had three to six respondents per site; in some cases, some respondents within a site indicated that they received 

federal support, and others indicated they did not know. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

36

support that comes from above us, from the TA centers, or from our federal leads, that 

they are talking to each other and that that’s coordinated. We’ve gotten very good 

support on each one of them, but as separate entities, not necessarily as correlating 

grants. 

Similarly, a respondent at another site explained that more coordination at the federal level, particularly 

related to TA, would enhance their coordination on-site. According to this respondent, 

I do love that the Department of Ed and SAMHSA came together to do this. I wish that 

there had been more coordination at that level where we could have received TA in a 

more integrated way, where the PBIS technical assistance center had worked more 

closely with NITT [Now Is the Time], because I do think that the experiences that these 

districts have received because of these two grants are really rich, and I think it could 

have been enhanced if there had just been more coordination at the federal level.

Other suggestions included modeling coordination at the federal level (e.g., integrating TA and other 

grant activities), holding events to bring the two programs together earlier in the life cycle of the grant, 

and developing a shared vision and mission that would leverage the strengths of both federal agencies 

(SAMHSA and the Department).

Lessons Learned From Grant Coordination

The importance of planning and the value of communication were the most commonly 

reported lessons learned for grantees (56 percent each). 

Grantees reported multiple factors that they would have changed during the early or planning phase of 

their grants to facilitate better coordination between the grant programs. These 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. Grantees also 

noted the importance of engaging key stakeholders early in the process and educating them about the 

grant (e.g., plans and progress updates). In addition, several grantees mentioned planning for 

sustainability or implementing strategies that would promote sustainability. A district-level SCTG 

respondent said, 

I think you have to start looking at sustainability from Day 1. I think we looked at it too 

late. We didn’t really start looking at it until after Year 1, and I think we should have 

started looking at it from the very beginning. Now, we kind of got a little bit more 

pushback than I would have liked to have seen regarding embedding that professional 

development within the training for the incoming teachers. There was a lot of 

enthusiasm and stuff for it at the beginning I think we could have capitalized on — if we 

had talked about sustainability from Day 1. 

Another commonly reported lesson learned was the value of communication. Specifically, grantees 

mentioned the importance of messaging, helping stakeholders understand the need for and the goals of 

the grant, and connecting these goals to the district’s mission and other initiatives and strategies that 

are currently being implemented in the district.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

37

I wish, from the beginning, there would’ve been something presented at the district level 

to the school principals that we were working with to help them understand how 

important it is and what the grant is. I can see now that when principals have so many 

things on their plate, they really need something broken down in very simplified terms of 

what we’re asking . . . It’s almost like people need to know the why, why are we doing, 

not just what we’re doing. They need to understand the reasons behind why this is so 

important for students.

Other lessons learned included establishing relationships, being flexible in terms of how grantees work 

with schools and their interactions with the funding agencies, understanding the time required to 

implement the grants and see results, and planning for sustainability (e.g., embedding or aligning 

practices). 

Lessons Learned From District and State Grantees 

Lessons Learned From a High-Coordination District

Communicating early and often to school personnel, families, and stakeholders in addition to providing training 

that is easily accessible to all school personnel and community agencies (and others who are interested) were 

the key components to successful collaboration. Although it was too early in the SCTG program to analyze 

outcome data, the interviewees provided examples of how particular students’ needs were addressed because

of SCTG and Project AWARE collaboration. The interviewees stated that through collaboration, school climate 

and mental health concerns were recognized more and were being addressed by teachers in the school district 

through YMHFA training and its integration in all three tiers of MTSS. A respondent said,

Our teachers are making better connections with our kids through the School Climate Transformation 

Grant and then those kids that are getting that connection are more open to talk to their teachers, and 

the teachers are ready and prepared to talk to those students. . . . So, by using this Project AWARE 

Grant to train our staff, we’ve been able to make our teachers more comfortable with the situation, 

know what to say, know who to point them to get help with, and give those kids a real outlet.

Lessons Learned From a State Grantee

This state began implementing a multi-tiered system of PBIS in the 1990s with five community-school 

partnerships. This initiative represented a proactive approach for creating behavioral supports and a social 

culture that established social, emotional, and academic success for all students using the response to 

intervention model, a three-tiered system of support, and a problem-solving process to help schools meet the 

needs of and effectively educate all students. State officials sought the SCTG and the Project AWARE grant to 

complement the existing PBIS infrastructure and integrate a focus on services to Native American youth. In 

addition to issues of role definition and clarity in the lines of supervision, the SCTG coordinator provided the 

following thoughts about coordination. 

I think we’ve made it pretty clear in our own agency that if we are writing grants like this ever again, 

that there really needs to be an established coordination team that’s made up of all the divisions that 

are involved, with very established goals and a shared vision, a shared hiring process, and a shared 

time line. I think if you have a vision that — I think of Wisconsin and what they’ve done with their 

trauma-informed [approaches] and PBIS. They went into that with a very specific vision. . . . I think it’s 

so obvious in the work that they’ve done and what they’ve been able to share with other people, but 

that was preplanning that made that happen.

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

39

Conclusion

The importance of professional coordination to improve school and student outcomes has been 

recognized for at least two decades. In the 1990s, the Department’s Office of Special Education 

Programs developed a national agenda for improving outcomes for students with emotional and 

behavioral disturbances. A centerpiece of this agenda was collaboration across schools, families, and 

other youth-serving agencies (Osher, Quinn, and Hanley 2002). The federal Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students initiative, which began in 1999 in response to a series of deadly school shootings, aimed to 

prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth. Through this initiative, more 

than $2 billion in funding and other resources have been provided to 365 communities in 49 states, and 

more than 13 million youth have been served (SAMHSA 2015). Safe Schools/Healthy Students focuses 

on collaboration, and the initiative has developed collaboration tools to sustain coordinated work 

through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base. 

In the policy context in which the value of coordination to achieve better outcomes in schools is 

recognized and actively promoted by federal sponsors, this study provided information about how and 

to what degree districts and state agencies reported that coordination was happening. This chapter

highlights potentially actionable lessons learned that are based on this work. 

Most school districts and state education offices reported engaging in at least a 

moderate level of coordination. 

More than half of the study sample (16 of 27 districts and five of nine states) were rated as engaging in 

at least a moderate level of coordination across the federal grant projects; only two districts were rated 

as showing the lowest level of coordination. This finding indicates that most districts have some capacity 

to coordinate work across schoolwide behavior supports (MTSS) and mental health. The overall level of 

district coordination is somewhat lower than one might have expected, however, considering that 23 of 

27 districts reported in their applications that the SCTG work would build on already established 

collaborations within the school system. 

A higher proportion of states than districts met the criteria for moderate or high 

coordination.

The state Project AWARE grants required that each state establish a state management team to oversee 

the coordination of comprehensive school mental health services with other ongoing initiatives, 

including the SCTG. The presence of this organizational structure enhanced the level of coordination for 

states. Some states had such teams in place before applying for the SCTGs, but for most it was new. 

Most districts and states reported using capacity-building mechanisms to plan for the 

sustainability of their coordination. 

Capacity building is a helpful strategy but is not in itself sufficient to sustain coordination across complex 

innovations such as MTSS or YMHFA (e.g., Barrett, Bradshaw, & Lewis-Palmer 2008; Garet et al. 2016). 

Districts, in particular, relied on this strategy heavily, with 24 of 27 districts planning to use capacity

building to promote sustainability. Fourteen districts stated that they relied on other strategies, such as 

establishing a permanent committee or a permanent position. A smaller proportion of districts 

identified more than two sustainability strategies (six of 27 districts, compared with five of nine states). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

40

More states than districts reported that the competitive preference points affected the 

decision to submit or the content of their grant application. 

Fewer than half of the districts (13 of 27) but most states (seven of nine) said that competitive 

preference points affected their grant application. This finding may be an artifact of the high number of 

district respondents who did not know about the competitive preference points. 

Grantees reported that coordination brought a range of benefits: system change, 

integration of mental health with school climate, and increased efficiency. 

The implementation research and practice communities have operated for decades under the assumption 

that coordination is an inherent good and more of it must be better. Large federally funded TA centers 

actively advocate for communities of practice and other ways for educators and youth-serving 

professionals to share information, goals, and tips. The data from this study suggested that these 

approaches may be well founded: grantees reported a variety of positive outcomes accruing from their 

coordination. Perhaps the most critical of these benefits was increased efficiency because the need for 

more time to accomplish work was a commonly nominated challenge. 

The importance of planning and the value of communication were the most commonly 

identified lessons learned for both districts and states. 

Identifying lessons learned for grantees that were coordinating work across schoolwide behavior and 

mental health can help practitioners, administrators, and policymakers become more proactive in 

addressing needs. Specifically, pitfalls in planning (such as crafting job descriptions, identifying 

implementation and outcome data to monitor, or seating the right partners on the advisory committee) 

can be addressed early if new grantees are advised about what those pitfalls may be. 

Overall, this study showed that coordination is perceived as valuable, but districts and states reported 

challenges. Coordination may increase efficiency across time, but in the short run, implementation 

studies show that co-training of staff and the planning required to integrate work requires the allocation 

of time and resources (Barrett et al. 2008; Garet et al. 2016). The long-term benefits identified by 

grantees suggested that investing in coordination may pay off for the quality and reach of their work 

across time. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

41

References

Algozzine, Bob, Susan Barrett, Lucille Eber, Heather George, Robert Horner, Timothy Lewis, Bob Putnam, 

Jessica Swain-Bradway, Kent McIntosh, and George Sugai. School-wide PBIS Tiered Fidelity 

Inventory. Washington, DC: OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports, 2014. 

Atkins, Marc S., Kimberly E. Hoagwood, Krista Kutash, and Edward Seidman. “Towards the Integration of 

Education and Mental Health in Schools.” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and 

Mental Health Services Research 37, no. 1–2 (March 2010): 40–47.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0299-7

Barrett, Susan, Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Teri Lewis-Palmer. Maryland Statewide PBIS Initiative: 

Systems, Evaluation, and Next Steps. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 10, no. 2 (2008): 

105–114. 

Barrett, Susan, Lucille Eber, and Mark Weist, eds. Advancing Education Effectiveness: Interconnecting 

School Mental Health and School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Eugene, OR and Baltimore, 

MD: Office of Special Education Programs Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and

Supports and the University of Maryland Center for School Mental Health, 2012. 

http://www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/Current%20Topics/Final-Monograph.pdf

Bradshaw, Catherine P., Mary M. Mitchell, and Philip J. Leaf. “Examining the Effects of School-Wide 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Student Outcomes: Results from a 

Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial in Elementary Schools.” Journal of Positive Behavior 

Interventions, 12, no. 3 (April 2010), 133–48. 

Debnam, Katrina J., Elise T. Pas, and Catherine P. Bradshaw. “Secondary and Tertiary Support Systems in 

Schools Implementing School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A 

Preliminary Descriptive Analysis.” Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 14, no. 3 (March 

2012): 142–52. 

Dinkes, Rachel, Emily F. Cataldi, Grace Kena, and Katrina Baum. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 

2006 (NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006. 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007003a.pdf 

Garet, Michael. S., Jessica B Heppen, Kirk Walters, Julia Parkinson, Toni M. Smith, Mengli Song, Rachel 

Garrett, Rui Yang, and Geoffrey D. Borman. Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact

of Content-Intensive Teacher Professional Development (NCEE 2016-4010). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2016. 

Hall, Gene, and Shirley Hord. Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn 

and Bacon, 2001. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

42

Horner, Robert, George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski, Lucille Eber, Jean Nakasato, Anne W. Todd, Jody 

Esperanza. “A Randomized, Wait-List Controlled Effectiveness Trial Assessing School-Wide 

Positive Behavior Support in Elementary Schools.” Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 

no. 3 (February 2009), 133–44.

Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods 

Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2013. 

Musu-Gillette, Lauren, Anlan Zhang, Ke Wang, Jizhi Zhang, and Barbara A. Oudekerk. Indicators of School 

Crime and Safety: 2016 (NCES 2017-064/NCJ 250650). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf

Osher, David M. “Creating Comprehensive and Collaborative Systems.” Journal of Child and Family 

Studies 11, no. 1 (March 2002): 91–99. 

Osher, David M., Kimberly Kendziora, Elizabeth Spier, and Mark L. Garibaldi. “School Influences on Child 

and Youth Development,” in Advances in Prevention Science, Volume 1: Defining Prevention 

Science (pp. 151–169), ed. Zili Sloboda and Hanno Petras. New York, NY: Springer, 2014. 

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7424-2_7

Osher, David M., Mary Magee Quinn, and Tom V. Hanley. “Children and Youth with Serious Emotional 

Disturbance: A National Agenda for Success.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 11, no. 1 

(2002): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014774526006 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. About Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

(SS/HS). Rockville, MD: Author, 2015. https://www.samhsa.gov/safe-schools-healthystudents/about

U.S. Department of Education. Request for Task Order. Task Order 23, Evaluation of the School Climate 

Transformation Grant Program. Washington, DC: Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 

2015. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-07/pdf/2014-10497.pdf 

White House. Now Is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by 

Reducing Gun Violence. Washington, DC: Author, 2013. 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

43

Appendix A. Technical Details for Coordination 

Continuum Ratings

Exhibit A-1. Construction of coordination continuum ratings for school districts and states

Summary The conceptualization of coordination used in this study translated levels identified by Osher 

(2002) into low, moderate, and high anchor points on a scale of 1 to 5, with ratings of 2 and 4 

representing intermediate levels of coordination. The scoring was based on a subset of 

coordination strategies and mechanisms described by interviewees that were rated, averaged, 

reviewed, and adjusted. The Analysis Methodssection of the Introduction introduces these 

analyses; the Findings: Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE Grantees chapter 

describes the findings. 

Definition of levels Coordination was defined as the degree to which training, planning, communication, and 

shared organizational structures were implemented by grantees in a shared manner. 

Coordination at a low level was defined as the independent execution of grant activities, or 

grant activities were conducted with limited interaction. Examples included referrals and 

communication letting the other organization know about planned activities. Moderate

coordination was defined as shared implementation of grant activities involving altered 

relationships of the independent organizations, staff, or resources. That is, rather than 

independent action or superficial interaction, agency staff actively worked together to plan and 

conduct activities. Coordination at a high level was defined as the integration of efforts and 

activities by organizations and staff to achieve common goals unattainable by a single individual 

or an organization acting alone. This level of coordination involved agreed-on common goals, 

shared responsibility, mutual accountability for success, and shared resources.

Data sources Study staff gathered data from coded qualitative interviews with project directors, staff, 

and other individuals familiar with the coordination of SCTGs and Project AWARE grants. 

Only those codes representing key findings for school districts and states associated with 

coordination strategies and mechanisms were used. Other key findings (e.g., advantages or 

factors that inhibited coordination) were excluded because they represented outcomes to 

coordination (i.e., perceived value, challenges, or lessons learned). The coded elements 

included the following:

School district codes

• Joint training

• Communication

• Plans for sustainability and capacity building

State codes

• Shared organizational structure

• Plans for sustainability and capacity building

Stage 1: Rating 

coded elements 

of interviews 

The lead qualitative analyst rated coded elements of each interview transcript by using the 

coordination continuum with the following criteria: 

Low (rating of 1)

• Interaction

• Sharing information

• Referrals

Moderate (rating of 3)

• Altered relationships

• Working together

• Planning events and activities
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

44

High (rating of 5)

• Agreed-on common goals

• Shared responsibility

• Mutual accountability for success

• Shared resources

A rating of 2 was given to those coded elements falling between the low and moderate

levels. Likewise, a rating of 4 was given to those coded elements falling between moderate

and high coordination.

Sample quotes 

illustrating range 

of ratings for 

communication

The following are example quotes for communication at Stage 1 at each rating level on the 

continuum of coordination. 

Low (rating of 1)

“And then there’s kind of community of practice too because some districts share that 

information and we’re part of the PBIS Coalition so you get together with a lot of folks and 

share things.” [SCTG respondent]

Low to moderate (rating of 2)

“So, and we meet quarterly — the instructors — to talk about, you know, what’s going 

well, what things have come up during the trainings to support each other and so, because 

we’ve done so much work in creating this system we just felt like well, because the funding 

ran out we’re not just going to drop it. So, we all felt that it was important enough in the 

county that we would continue to offer that service.” [project director for both SCTG and 

Project AWARE]

Moderate (rating of 3)

“Most of it was information sharing across the grants and making sure we understood 

what was happening in our partner districts in [our grant project], and how we might be 

able to offer a Youth Mental Health First Aid training through Project AWARE for those 

staff.” [Project AWARE respondent]

Moderate to high (rating of 4)

“We meet weekly with the school leadership teams and at least monthly with the school 

PBIS teams. And when we have those meetings, we find out the needs of the school and 

then create a plan for next steps.” [SCTG respondent]

High (rating of 5)

“I can give you a twofold example. One is that when we’re doing our annual strategic 

planning for my department, although [name] and behavioral health, which encompasses 

[Project] AWARE, is technically a separate sub-department from mine, we come together 

to do that planning and talk. We set our vision for what our charge was for the year and 

sort of on board stars so to speak, what we’re working towards this year in terms of our 

efforts. We set that together. We sat down and spent hours going through what would 

schools look like and sound like and feel like? What are some of the different metrics and 

data points?” [SCTG respondent]

Stage 2: 

Computing 

average ratings 

by site

Ratings given to coded passages were averaged first within an interview and then across 

interviewees by school district or state site. For example, if an interviewee had three 

ratings, these were averaged to arrive at a rating for the interviewee. If a site had four 

interviewees, these ratings were averaged to arrive at a global rating for that site.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

45

Stage 3: 

Assessing quality 

of global ratings

Global ratings were then reviewed by the study staff members who conducted the 

interviews for a given site or by the study’s project director, who reviewed and edited all 

interview transcripts. This review compared the arithmetically derived scores with expert 

judgment based on the holistic content of the interviews. When expert judgment differed 

from the calculated global rating, quotes were found to justify a revised rating. The 

following quotes are examples of global ratings that were revised. 

Increase from a rating of 2 to a rating of 3

• “For me it’s very different; it’s a bonus piece. The School Climate Transformation Grant

is the big animal, the big PBIS. They implement that in 57 schools at fidelity at all three

tiers. . . . So, School Climate Transformation to me is the big umbrella, and where

Project AWARE came in really was a perfect complementary piece of RTI [response to

intervention] for us because many of the kids — everything that my team does really is

for prevention, early intervention. And, so, with Youth Mental Health First Aid training,

we’ve been able to train over 600 staff and we’ve referred over 2,000 more students

the last two years.” [SCTG leader] 

Increase from a rating of 4 to a rating of 5

• “Well, we work very, very closely together. Our core team for Project AWARE has

three people on the team, and I have [one other person] and myself. The five of us,

along with our state PBIS coordinator, meet weekly, and we meet for an extended

time weekly to be sure that we are coordinating together, that we’re continually

talking about the integration.” [SCTG leader]

• “So, within that we are working, we meet regularly with the School Climate

Transformation team, weekly basis to align the work of building mental health

capacity, [and] identifying students early. . . . Once we identify a learner who may

need additional mental health support, making sure, within a multi-tiered system, we

are aligning our work so that there [are] both Tier 2 or 3 interventions as well as

preventative and promotive health supports at the universal level.” [Project AWARE

leader] 

Decrease from a rating of 3 to a rating of 2

• “I’ll start off by saying that I am not the person who’s responsible for Project

AWARE. . . . Project AWARE in our district is primarily Youth Mental Health First Aid

training. . . . So that is the only component that I’m aware of with Project AWARE and

my role in that is to work with the trainers to coordinate the training sessions, to make

sure that they have the materials. I make sure that we have sign-in sheets, certificates,

and all of those logistical pieces. So that would be my only connection with Project

AWARE.” [SCTG leader] 

Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

47

Appendix B. GPRA Data for School District

and State-Level Grantees

The GPRA indicators for district and state SCTG grantees are shown in Exhibit B-1. 

Exhibit B-1. GPRA indicators for district and state SCTGs

Grantee type Indicators

School districts 1. Number and percentage of schools reporting an annual decrease in office disciplinary referrals

2. Number and percentage of schools reporting an annual improvement in the attendance rate

3. Number and percentage of schools reporting an annual decrease in suspensions and 

expulsions, including those related to possession or the use of drugs or alcohol

4. Number and percentage of schools annually implementing the multi-tiered behavioral 

framework with fidelity (to the PBIS Technical Assistance Center’s fidelity instrument) 

States 1. Number of training and TA events focused on implementing a multi-tiered behavioral 

framework

2. Percentage of school districts supported that reported an improvement in knowledge of 

implementation of a multi-tiered behavioral framework

3. Percentage of schools that provided training that implemented a multi-tiered behavioral 

framework with fidelity 

Exhibit B-2 summarizes the GPRA fidelity indicator data for the 27 district grantees in the SCTG program 

that were included in this study. These GPRA data were analyzed to address the question of how 

collaboration relates to the fidelity of MTSS implementation. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

48

Exhibit B-2. Percentage of schools implementing MTSS with fidelity

School district grantee 2015 2016 Difference

ABC Unified School District (CA) 0 12 12

Appleton Area School District (WI) 95 100 5 

Berlin Area School District (WI) 33 66 33

Cheektowaga Central School District (NY) 0 100 100

Corbin Board of Education (KY) 100 100 0 

Des Moines Independent Community School District (IA) 25 85 60

Duval County Public Schools (FL) 50 60 10

El Rancho Unified School District (CA) 0 * * 

Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Laker Schools (MI) * 0 * 

Ft. Dodge Community School District (IA) 100 100 0 

Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District (MA) 0 17 17

Hillsborough County Public Schools (FL) 0 90 90

Jefferson County Board of Education (KY) 22 57 35

Jefferson Parish Public School System (LA) 49 79 30

Laconia School District (NH) * 20 * 

Lyons Central School District (NY) 0 0 0 

Mendocino County Office of Education (CA) 53 16 -37

Monterey County Office of Education (CA) 75 67 -8

Muskegon Area Intermediate School District (MI) 62 73 11

Newton Public Schools (MA) 0 0 0 

Northside Independent School District (TX) 0 56 56

Pasadena Independent School District (TX) 47 47 0 

Pasadena Unified School District (CA) 15 * * 

School Board of Broward County (FL) 29 65 36

School Board of Polk County (FL) 22 16 -6

School District of Lancaster (PA) 0 0 0

Town of Reading (MA) 14 17 57

Notes: Fidelity was defined as a score of 70 or higher on PBIS.org’s Tiered Fidelity Inventory or Benchmarks of Quality rubric or a score of 80 or 

higher on the School-Wide Evaluation Tool. “*” indicates data not reported by grantee. 

Source: Data provided by the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, U.S. Department of Education, June 2017. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

49

Appendix C. Data Tables 

This appendix includes data tables that present respondent-level counts for each study finding 

aggregated at the district and state levels. The order of the data tables corresponds to the study 

research questions. Each exhibit presents percentages and counts of responses from interviewees. 

Categories are listed in descending order based on total counts. Types of comments representing each 

code appear below each table to aid interpretation. 

Exhibit C-1. Coordination strategies used as part of an MTSS or behavioral support framework 

reported by district and state grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Joint training 48 57 52 16 29 21

Coordinated planning 17 19 18 28 43 33

Communication 13 21 17 8 29 15

Shared organizational 

structure

13 17 15 40 7 28

Data sharing 6 10 7 4 7 5 

Unknown 6 5 5 0 7 3 

Number of grantees

Joint training 25 24 49 4 4 8 

Coordinated planning 9 8 17 7 6 13

Communication 7 9 16 2 4 6 

Organizational structure 7 7 14 10 1 11

Data sharing 3 4 7 1 1 2 

Unknown 3 2 5 0 1 1 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2016–17. 

Coding category Types of comments

Joint training Comments indicated that training of personnel involved both grants (e.g., MTSS 

coaches receive YMHFA training) or incorporating grant topics into training (YMHFA 

covered in MTSS training).

Coordinated planning Comments indicated a description of how strategies and mechanisms of the grants 

were coordinated and integrated. 

Communication Comments indicated information sharing; attending meetings together; and 

communications about activities, such as including other agency personnel on 

newsletters or updates. 

Shared organizational 

structure

Comments indicated overlap of positions across grants (e.g., dual professional 

development), a dedicated team or committee, and external partnerships. 

Data sharing The site collected or leveraged data to make decisions. 

Unknown The respondent lacked awareness of coordination activities. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

50

Exhibit C-2. Plans to continue coordination after the grants end reported by district and state grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Capacity building 63 48 56 52 43 49

Permanent position 27 12 20 8 14 10

Permanent committee or team 17 17 17 28 36 31

Seek funding 15 14 15 24 43 31

Use of existing infrastructure 8 7 7 4 21 10

Number of grantees

Capacity building 33 20 53 13 6 19

Permanent position 14 5 19 2 2 4 

Permanent committee or team 9 7 16 7 5 12

Seek funding 8 6 14 6 6 12

Use of existing infrastructure 4 3 7 1 3 4 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2016–17.

Coding category Types of comments

Capacity building Comments indicated that training of shared permanent positions or 

individuals would lead to sustainability. 

Permanent position Comments indicated that the grant-funded position would become 

permanently funded to continue coordination activities. 

Permanent committee or team Comments indicated that coordination would continue through committees 

or teams that would persist after grant funding has ended. 

Seek funding Comments indicated that additional funding would be sought to continue 

coordination activities or positions. 

Use of existing infrastructure Comments indicated that infrastructure (e.g., expanded MTSS framework or

common language) was in place, or would be in place, to support 

sustainability. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

51

Exhibit C-3. Long-term changes resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state grantees 

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

System change 35 26 31 20 21 21

Changed perspective 23 24 23 0 7 3 

Better relationships 12 19 15 16 14 15

Enhanced framework 15 12 14 4 14 8 

Increased awareness 2 14 7 0 0 0 

Number of grantees

System change 18 11 29 5 3 8 

Changed perspective 12 10 22 0 1 1 

Better relationships 6 8 14 4 2 6 

Enhanced framework 8 5 13 1 2 3 

Increased awareness 1 6 7 0 0 0 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2016–17.

Coding category Types of comments

System change Comments indicated systemic long-term change (e.g., coordinated activities or 

mechanism now permanent, to include leadership team). 

Changed perspective Comments indicated a change in attitude about or behavior concerning mental 

health issues. 

Better relationships Comments indicated that internal or external relationships had been created or 

strengthened because of coordination. 

Enhanced framework Comments indicated that coordination helped improve or expand the framework 

for the integration of mental health and school climate. 

Increased awareness Comments indicated growth in knowledge or an understanding of mental health 

issues. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

52

Exhibit C-4. Advantages resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Better relationships 15 17 16 12 21 15

Increased efficiency 17 12 15 24 21 23

Working across disciplines 13 17 15 24 7 18

Having common goals 15 5 11 12 21 15

Enhanced framework 4 10 6 16 36 23

Increased awareness 4 10 6 0 7 3 

Number of grantees

Better relationships 8 7 15 3 3 6 

Increased efficiency 9 5 14 6 3 9 

Working across disciplines 7 7 14 6 1 7 

Having common goals 8 2 10 3 3 6 

Enhanced framework 2 4 6 4 5 9 

Increased awareness 2 4 6 0 1 1 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017. 

Coding category Types of comments

Better relationships Coordination created or improved on internal or external relationships.

Increased efficiency Coordination increased efficiencies by leveraging shared resources (e.g., 

shared professional development, multiple perspectives, and expertise). 

Working across disciplines Coordination forced individuals or offices to work with those from other 

disciplinary backgrounds, such as social workers working with teachers. 

Having common goals Coordination created common goals or direction between grants (e.g., viewed 

as one initiative, not multiple initiatives). 

Enhanced framework Coordination enhanced or expanded the framework for integrating mental 

health and school climate. 

Increased awareness Comments indicated growth in knowledge or an understanding of mental 

health issues. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

53

Exhibit C-5. Accomplishments resulting from grant coordination reported by district and state 

grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Enhanced framework 29 38 33 24 29 26

Increased awareness 25 24 24 12 0 8 

Changed perspective 12 17 14 16 0 10

System change 17 7 13 12 29 18

Training related 12 7 10 4 14 8 

Enhanced interventions 12 2 7 8 7 8 

Larger network 6 7 6 12 7 10

Synergy 6 0 3 8 29 15

Number of grantees

Enhanced framework 15 16 31 6 4 10

Increased awareness 13 10 23 3 0 3 

Changed perspective 6 7 13 4 0 4 

System change 9 3 12 3 4 7 

Training related 6 3 9 1 2 3 

Enhanced interventions 6 1 7 2 1 3 

Larger network 3 3 6 3 1 4 

Synergy 3 0 3 2 4 6 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017. 

Coding category Types of comments

Enhanced framework Comments indicated that coordination helped improve or expand the framework 

for integrating mental health and school climate. 

Increased awareness Comments indicated growth in knowledge or an understanding of mental health 

issues. 

Changed perspective Comments indicated a change in attitude about or behavior concerning mental 

health issues. 

System change Comments indicated accomplishment as a systemic change (e.g., started a staff 

learning library with resources related to academics and behavior). 

Training related Comments indicated that an accomplishment related to training (e.g., reaching 

correct audiences or meeting training goal) could not have occurred without 

coordination of grants.

Enhanced interventions Comments indicated that one or more interventions were enhanced because of 

grant coordination.

Larger network Comments indicated that at least one network connection (i.e., with another 

group, office, department, or team) was made possible because of grant 

coordination.

Synergy Comments indicated that the facilitation of a process or a mechanism because of 

grant coordination — that is, the process or mechanism — still would have 

occurred without coordination (e.g., training individuals in YMHFA) but was 

accomplished more efficiently with it.
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

54

Exhibit C-6. Challenges faced in doing the work of the grant reported by district and state grantees 

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Getting buy-in or follow-through 62 45 54 24 43 31

Limited resources 42 43 43 32 29 31

Training time 15 60 35 8 7 8 

Organizational changes 27 7 18 12 29 18

Requirements or lack thereof 10 14 12 24 29 26

Training logistics 4 14 9 0 0 0 

Lack of common goals, understanding, or 

integration of different philosophies

10 5 7 32 14 26

Geographic 4 10 6 12 14 13

Technology issues 4 10 6 0 14 5 

Number of grantees

Getting buy-in or follow-through 32 19 51 6 6 12

Limited resources 22 18 40 8 4 12

Training time 8 25 33 2 1 3 

Organizational changes 14 3 17 3 4 7 

Requirements or lack thereof 5 6 11 6 4 10

Training logistics 2 6 8 0 0 0 

Lack of common goals, understanding, or 

integration of different philosophies

5 2 7 8 2 10

Geographic 2 4 6 3 2 5 

Technology issues 2 4 6 0 2 2 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017. 

Coding category Types of comments

Getting buy-in or followthrough

Comments indicated getting buy-in or participation with internal staff at all 

levels or external agencies (e.g., people see the value of the work, principal 

supports time away for training, or people follow through on their training 

commitments). 

Limited resources Comments indicated a challenge of meeting goals of the grant with limited 

funds or staff. 

Training time Comments indicated a challenge of getting teachers, staff, or others to 

commit voluntarily to a full day of unmandated and structured training. 

Organizational changes Comments indicated a challenge of managing organizational changes and 

their effect on coordination (e.g., staff turnover, changes in administration, or 

reorganizations). 

Requirements or lack thereof Comments indicated a challenge of meeting different agency requirements 

for multiple grants. 

Training logistics Comments indicated a challenge related to one or more aspects of training 

(e.g., determining who should be trained, reaching training number goal). 

Lack of common goals, 

understanding, or integration 

of different philosophies

Comments indicated a challenge of coordination because of a lack of shared 

common goals, understanding, or integration of work or different 

philosophies. 

Geographic Comments indicated a challenge related to a geographic hurdle (e.g., travel 

distance or the distance to nearest mental health provider). 

Technology issues Comments indicate a challenge related to technology (e.g., difficulty getting 

website or database working properly). 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

55

Exhibit C-7. Factors that enhanced grant coordination reported by district and state grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Communication 25 21 23 12 14 13

Common goals or 

complementary grants

21 12 17 16 14 15

Buy-in or follow-through 17 14 16 4 29 13

Shared organizational structure 10 17 13 0 0 0 

Champion or key people 8 10 9 8 36 18

Better network 10 7 9 4 7 5 

Convenient location 8 7 7 16 7 13

Overlap of staff 8 7 7 0 0 0 

Number of grantees

Communication 13 9 22 3 2 5 

Common goals or 

complementary grants

11 5 16 4 2 6 

Buy-in or follow-through 9 6 15 1 4 5 

Shared organizational structure 5 7 12 0 0 0 

Champion or key people 4 4 8 2 5 7 

Better network 5 3 8 1 1 2 

Convenient location 4 3 7 4 1 5 

Overlap of staff 4 3 7 0 0 0 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent.

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017.

Coding category Types of comments

Communication Comments indicated information sharing; attending meetings together; and 

communications about activities, such as including other agency personnel 

on newsletters or updates

Buy-in or follow-through Comments indicated getting buy-in or participation with internal staff at all 

levels or external agencies (e.g., people see the value of the work, principal 

supports time away for training, or people follow through on their training 

commitments)

Common goals or 

complementary grants

Coordination created common goals or direction between grants (e.g., 

viewed as one initiative, not multiple initiatives). 

Shared organizational structure Comments indicated overlap of staff on grants and activities (e.g., teams 

with individuals from both grants or an individual who works on both 

grants). 

Champion or key people Comments indicated a high-level or an instrumental individual facilitates 

coordination or is integral to its success. 

Better network Comments indicated that internal or external relationships were created or 

strengthened because of coordination. 

Convenient location Comments indicated location or proximity enhanced coordination (e.g., 

being housed in the same department or office). 

Overlap of staff Comments indicated overlap of staff on grants or activities. 
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination Between SCTG and Project AWARE

56

Exhibit C-8. Factors that inhibited grant coordination reported by district and state grantees

District grantees State grantees

SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total SCTG Project 

AWARE

Total

Code (n = 52) (n = 42) (n = 94) (n = 25) (n = 14) (n = 39)

Percentage of grantees

Limited resources 27 29 28 12 21 15

Buy-in or follow-through 8 7 7 12 14 13

Organizational structure or changes 6 10 7 4 0 3 

Lack of common goals or understanding 

or different philosophies

0 5 2 20 14 18

Number of grantees

Limited resources 14 12 26 3 3 6 

Buy-in or follow-through 4 3 7 3 2 5 

Organizational structure or changes 3 4 7 1 0 1 

Lack of common goals or understanding 

or different philosophies

0 2 2 5 2 7 

Note: Because of multiple responses, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. 

Source: Grantee interviews, 2017. 

Coding category Types of comments

Limited resources Comments indicated that coordination was inhibited by limited resources (e.g., 

funds, staff, or time). 

Buy-in or follow-through Comments indicated not getting buy-in or participation with internal staff at all 

levels or external agencies. 

Organizational structure or 

changes

Comments indicated that the organizational structure got in the way of 

coordination or a recent change in organizational structure inhibited

coordination. 

Lack of common goals or 

understanding or different 

philosophies

Comments indicated that differing goals, understanding, or philosophies got in 

the way of coordination. 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

www.ed.gov