Berkeley City Council
July 26, 2022

4 34

Youth Support Groups: The use of Support Groups or Grou p Therapy are considered to be a highly effective and preferred intervention for adolescents who tend to be more likely to accept feedback from their peers than from adults. Through this project, separate weekl y therapeutic support groups were provided at Albany High School fo r Asian Pacific Islander, Latinx , and African American youth. Groups m et for 1-2 hours a week throughout the school year and were focused on helping participants process various traumatic events through the development of trust, clos e connections to each other, and creating a safe space for the expression and understanding of feelings.

In FY19, three separate support groups were held at Albany high School. Each group met weekly for 1 hour and continued until the end of the school yea r. Students were assigned to three groups based on racial or ethnic identity: Latinx, African -American, and Asian -American. This was done in  order to help promote connection, identification and group cohesion. Students that participated in the trauma grou ps at Albany High School were initially recommended by counselors, mental health coordinators, or administrators who believed that these selected students may have experienced trauma in their lives. These students were then interviewed individually to asse ss and determine if they wished to participate in the groups. Forty -five students were interviewed and assessed for all three groups. Of those 45 students, 32 students attended at least 1 group session, and 22 students continued in group for 6 or more sess ions. The initial group meeting was set up specifically as a way to allow prospective members to experience group and to determine if they wanted to participate. After the initial group sessions, students were asked to either commit to attend group for 8 sessions or to opt out. As expected, some students who attended the initial group chose not to participate in the groups, while most students signed up for 8 initial sessions and then continued to attend groups through the remainder of the year. In aggrega te, there were a total of 58 individual meetings with students and 63 group sessions. The 45 students served by this program received 422 total contacts, and there were 4 referrals for additional mental health services.

A pre-test questionnaire was admini stered at the 2nd group meeting, and a post -test questionnaire was administered at the last group meeting. The pre -test was completed by 25 students and the post -test was completed by 19 students. Several group members were unable to complete the post -test due to not being able to attend the final group session. Student responses on the pre -test questionnaire are outlined below:

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS N = 25

QUESTIONS PARTICIPANT RESPONSES
Have you lost someone close to you? Yes – 64%
No – 36%
Have you witnessed violence in your family? Yes – 52%
No – 48%
Have you witnessed violence in your home? Yes – 7 – 28% No – 18 – 72%
Have you been a victim of violence or abuse? Yes – 72% No – 28%
If yes, have you spoken to anyone about this? Yes – 100% No – 0%
Do you feel that you’ve had the support in your life to cope effectively with the painful things you’ve experienced? Rarely – 8%
Sometimes – 48%
Most of the Time – 44%

5 35

Do you use healthy ways to cope with stress in your life? Never – 4% Rarely – 20%
Sometimes – 32%
Most of the Time – 44%
Do you use drugs or alcohol to help cope with your
feelings, i.e. relax, calm down, quiet your mind, reduce anger, etc.?
Never – 48%
Rarely – 20%
Sometimes – 24%
Most of the Time – 8%
Are there adults at your school who you can talk openly to about personal issues?
Yes – 76%
No – 24%

Pre-test results indicated that man y of the group members had experienced significant trauma in their lives.

Other traumas experienced by group members that were discussed in group included institutionalized racism, unjust police practices, poverty, immigration, parental incarceration, deat h of a family member, parental substance abuse, mental illness of a parent, and physical/emotional abuse. Student responses on the post-test questionnaire were as follows:

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS N = 19
QUESTIONS or STATEMENTS PARTICIPANT RESPONSES
I felt welcomed into group. Strongly Disagree – 0%
Disagree – 0%
Neutral – 0%
Agree – 37%
Strongly Agree – 63%
N/A – 0%
I felt the group was a place I could express my feelings. Strongly Disagree – 0% Disagree – 0%
Neutral – 0%
Agree – 53%
Strongly Agree – 47%
N/A – 0%
I felt supported by other group members. Strongly Disagree – 0% Disagree – 0%
Neutral – 0%
Agree – 32%
Strongly Agree – 68%
N/A – 0%
As a direct result of participating in the group, I feel like I have more support to help me deal with challeng es.

Strongly Disagree – 0%
Disagree – 0%
Neutral – 11%
Agree – 63%
Strongly Agree – 26%
N/A – 0%
As a direct result of participating in the group, I cope with stress in healthier ways.

Strongly Disagree – 0%
Disagree – 5%
Neutral – 32%
Agree – 32%
Strongly Agree – 26%
N/A – 5%

6 36

As a direct result of participating in the group, I have reduced the use of drugs and/or alcohol to cope with
difficult feelings.

Strongly Disagree – 0%
Disagree – 5%
Neutral – 11%
Agree – 21%
Strongly Agree – 5%
N/A – 58%
As a direct result of participating in the group, I would consider seeking help from a mental health professional in the future for a personal problem that was really bothering me.

Strongly Disagree – 0%
Disagree – 5%
Neutral – 32%
Agree – 11%
Strongly Agree – 26%
N/A – 26%
Would you recommend this group to a friend? Yes – 100% No – 0%
Post-test results suggested that all group members reported a positive experience in the support groups. All students who completed the post -test responded that they felt welcomed into the group, felt that the group was a place where they could express their feelings, and felt supported by the other group members.

Additionally, all students who completed the post -test responded “Yes” to the qu estion, “Would you recommend this group to a friend?” Group members also reported significant improvements in various metrics related to their coping skills as outlined below:
•   89% felt more supported in dealing with challenges; •   72% indicated that they cope d with stress in healthier ways; •   63% reported a reduction in their use of drugs and alcohol to cope with difficult feelings; •   71% expressed willingness to seek help from a mental health professional in the future.

The sole adverse finding from the post -test results was related to school truancy. Among the 19 students who participated in support group sessions, school truancy increased by 90% between the FY18 academic year (31 unexcused absences) to the FY19 academic year (59 unexcused absences). According to the AUSD program report, several factors may account for this surprising finding. First, the groups were disproportionally comprised of seniors (16 of the 19 students), many of whom spoke repeatedly in group about their “senioritis” and corresponding l ack of motivation to attend school. Additionally, a small number of students (4) accounted for 31 of the 59 unexcused absences for the current school year. The truancy of these 4 students – which resulted from a complicated series of factors (e.g., adverse changes in one student’s home environment; a bout of clinical depression for another student) – likely skewed the overall data. If t he attendance numbers of these 4 students were removed from the analyses, the difference in school truancy between the FY18 academic year (20 unexcused absences) and the FY19 academic year (28 unexcused absences) would be much less pronounced.

Among all services conducted for children, youth and Adults through the Albany Trauma Project, a total of 79 individuals were served. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=79
Age Group
0-15 13%
16-25 58%

7 37

26-59 20%
60+ 9%
Race
Asian 20%
Black or African American 15%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1%
White 32%
Other 24%
More than one race 8%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Central American 6%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 44%
South American 3%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
African 14%
Asian Indian/South Asian 5%
Chinese 4%
European 1%
Filipino 6%
Japanese 1%
More than one ethnicity 8%
Other 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 5%
Primary Language Used
English 72%
Spanish 28%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 3%
Heterosexual or Straight 57%
Bisexual 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 37%
Disability
Difficulty Seeing 1%

8 38

Mental (not mental health) 1%
Physical/Mobility Disability 1%
No Disability 42%
Veterans Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned sex at birth
Male 61%
Female 39%
Current Gender Identity
Male 61%
Female 39%
In FY20, 18 individuals received supports through one -on-one engagement sessions. Services were not able to continue between March and June due to the pandemic. Nine Elementary Schoo l Support Groups served a total of 10 participants. Each group met for 1 -2 hours in duration. There were seven referrals for additional mental health services, four for Social Services, and one referral to an unspecified service. Thirty - five outreach acti vities were also conducted. School ended abruptly in mid -March in response to the pandemic. Students who had participated in individual counseling continued to rece ive weekly services over Zoom. Twenty-nine support group sessions were held at Albany high School, and served a total of 29 students. Students were assigned to three groups based on racial or ethnic identity: Latinx, African - American, and Asian -American. This was done in order to help promote connection, identification and group cohesion. Stud ents that participated in the trauma groups at Albany High School were initially recommended by counselors, mental health coordinators, or administrators who believed that these selected students may have experienced trauma in their lives. These students w ere then interviewed individually to assess and determine if they wished to participate in the groups. Each group met weekly for one hour, and were able to continue by Zoom when schools were abruptly closed in March due to the pandemic.

Among all services conducted for children, youth, adults and older adults through the Albany Trauma Project, a total of 65 individuals were served. Demographics on indi viduals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=65*

Age Group
Golden Gate Fields
Racetrack
Supports
Elementary
Support Groups

High School
Support Groups

Percent of total participants served 28% 15% 57%
0-15 90%
16-25 6% 10% 100%
26-59 56%

9 39

60+ 39%
Race
Asian 6% 24%
Black or African American 50% 27%
White 56% 20% 41%
Other 39% 30%
More than one Race 8%

Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Golden Gate Fields
Racetrack
Supports
Elementary
School
Support Groups
High School
Support Groups
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 94% 10% 32%
Central American 3%
Puerto Rican 10% 5%

Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or
Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx

Asian Indian/South Asian 10% 3%
Chinese 14%
Filipino 6% 5%
Japanese 3%
More than one Ethnicity 35%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 70%
Primary Language Used
English 17% 100% 100%
Spanish 83%

Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 3%
Heterosexual or Straight 100% 100% 95%
Bisexual 3%
Disability
Other Disability 22%
No Disability 78% 30% 100%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 70%
Veterans Status

0 40

No 100% 100% 100%
Gender: Assigned sex at birth
Male 83% 50% 51%
Female 17% 50% 49%
Current Gender Identity
Male 83% 50% 51%
Female 17% 50% 49%
*Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

In FY21 this project was discontinued as Albany services began to be funded through Alameda County MHSA Funds. Beginning in FY22, Trauma Support Services for the La tinx population in Berkeley began to be provided through the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, wh o were chosen through a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process.

Latinx Trauma Support Project
In FY22, following a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant began implementing the Latinx Trauma Support Project. T his project assists low-income, Latinx families in Berkeley to access culturally, ethnically, and linguistically responsive and trauma -informed prevention and intervention services. Project services are in direct response to and in collaboration with Lat inx community members, and are largely facilitated by individuals from within the targeted community and conducted in Spanish or an indigenous language. Services include: One -on-one outreach and support; support groups; staff and partner training ; and warm referrals.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project is to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically app ropriate prevention and intervention; •   Youth Engagement and Outreach Strategies that target secondary school and transition age youth. •   Strategies targeting the mental health needs of older adults.

As this project was not in operation in FY21, f uture MHSA Three Year Plans and Annual Updates will include a reporting on program data and activities .

Transition Age Youth Trauma Support Project
Implemented through the Covenant House, Youth Engagement Advocacy Housing (YEAH!) program through FY21, this project provides supportive services for Transition Age Youth (TAY) who are suffering from the impact of trauma and/or other life stressors and are homeless, marginally housed, or housed but in need of supports. The project serves a wide range of youth from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds who share the common goal of living lives less impacted by trauma and more impacted by wellness. The project consists of the following four components: One -on-one sessions that assess individuals needs around trauma supports and support group readiness; psycho -educational support groups; youth social outings that provide TAY with exposure to healthy settings designed to enhance life skills and choices; and youth

1 41

celebratory events that are held monthly to convene youth aroun d a positive occasion to acknowledge the various small and large accomplishments of TAY participants, and build trust and community.

Approximately 30 -35 TAY receive services through this project a year.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project is to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and intervention; •   Youth engagement and o utreach strategies that target secondary school and transition age youth.

In FY19, 142 TAY par ticipated in one or more project services over the year. Support Group sessions included: Harm Reduction and Substance Use; Mindfulness; Coping Skills; Creative E xpression, among others. Twelve Youth Social Outings included 48 TAY participants, and 123 TAY, participated in 21 Youth Celebratory Events. Demographics on youth served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N = 142
Age Group
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 100%
Race
Asian 1%
Black or African American 46%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1%
White 33%
Other 4%
More than one Race 13%
Decline to State (or Unknown) 2%

Latino Ethnicity
Central American 16%
Mexican/Mexican-American 74%
South American 10%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
African 34%
Asian Indian/South Asian 1%
Eastern European 6%
European 14%

2 42

Filipino 2%
More than one Ethnicity 14%
Other 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 28% Primary Language Used
English 91%
Spanish 8%
Other 1%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 14%
Heterosexual or Straight 48%
Bisexual 8%
Questioning or Unsure 4%
Queer 1%
Decline to State 25%
Disability
Difficulty Hearing or Having Speech Understood 1%
Mental (not mental health) 33%
Physical/Mobility Disability 5%
Chronic Health Condition 5%
Other Disability 44%
No Disability 11%
Decline to State 1%
Difficulty Hearing or Having Speech Understood 1%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned sex at Birth
Male 58%
Female 42%
Gender Identity
Male 50%
Female 36%
Transgender 9%

3 43

Genderqueer 1%
Other 4%
During the reporting timeframe 246 outreach activities were conduct ed, with 4,930 duplicated contacts.

There were 405 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals were as follows: 68 Mental Health; 71 Physical Health; 116 Social Services; 49 Housing; 101 other unspecified services. A total of 23% of project participants received individual counseling; 20% exited the project into stable housing; and 24% obtained employment or entered school during th e project. Per participant feedback, 83% repor ted being satisfied with project services.

In FY20, 96 TAY par ticipated in one or more project services. Services were continued during the pandemic through tele -health and tele-conferencing platforms. A total of 96 TAY participated in support groups over the year. Support Group sessions incl uded: Harm Reduction and Substance Use; Mindfulness; Coping Skills; Creative Exp ression, among others. There was a total of 24 Youth Social Outings with 68 unduplicated TAY participants, and 82 unduplicated TAY, participated in 24 Youth Celebratory Events.

Demographics on youth served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N = 96 *
Age Group
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 100%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 5%
Asian 1%
Black or African American 46%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 4%
White 28%
More than one Race 15%
Decline to Answer (or Unknown) 1%

Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino /Latina/Latinx
Central American 5%
Mexican/Mexican-American 15%
South American 1%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 35%
Asian Indian/South Asian 1%

4 44

Chinese 1%
Eastern European 5%
European 15%
Filipino 3%
More than one Ethnicity 17%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 2% Primary Language Used
English 86%
Spanish 14%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 8%
Heterosexual or Straight 81%
Bisexual 10%
Disability
Mental (not mental health) 50%
Chronic Health Condition 11% Other Disability 20%
No Disability 16%
Decline to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Veteran Status
Yes 1%
No 99%
Gender: Assigned sex at Birth
Male 33%
Female 26%
Decline to Answer (or Unknown) 41%
Gender Identity
Male 59%
Female 36%
Transgender 2%
Other 2%
*Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

5 45

During the reporting timeframe 1,615 outreach activities were conducted, with 2,351 duplicated contacts.

There were 423 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals were as follows: 77 Mental Health; 102 Physical Health; 88 Social Services; 76 Housing; 80 other unspecifi ed services. A total of 46% participants received individua l counseling; 29% exited the project into stable housing; and 39% obtained employment or e ntered school during the project . Per participant feedback, 100% reported being satisfied with project services.

In FY21, 150 TAY par ticipated in one or more projec t services. Services were continued during the pandemic through tele -health and tele-conferencing platforms. Sup port Group sessions included: Harm Reduction and Substance Use; Mindfulness; Coping Skills; Creative Expression, among others. There was a total of 9 Youth Social Outings with 37 unduplicated TAY participants, and 68 unduplicated TAY, participated in 18 Youth Celebratory Event s. Demographics on youth served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N = 150
Age Group
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 100% Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 3%
Asian 3%
Black or African American 57%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1%
White 15%
More than one Race 15%
Other 3%
Decline to Answer (or Unknown) 3% Ethnicity: Latino/Latina/Latinx
Central American 14%
Mexican/Mexican-American 9%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 19%
Asian Indian/South Asian 1%
European 4%
Filipino 1%
Japanese 1%

6 46

More than one Ethnicity 21%
Other 29%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1% Primary Language Used
English 89%
Spanish 11%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 6%
Heterosexual or Straight 47%
Bisexual 12%
Questioning or unsure 4%
Other 20%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 11%
Disability Status
Mental (not mental health) 15% Physical/Mobility Disability 4% Chronic Health Condition 3% Other Disability 31% No Disability 35%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 12% Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned sex at birth
Male 61%
Female 39%
Current Gender Identity
Male 60%
Female 37%
Transgender 3%
During the reporting timeframe 2,510 outreach activities were conducted. There were 493 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals were as follows: 112 Mental Health; 104 Physical Health; 87 Social Services; 76 Housing; 114 other unspecified serv ices. A total of 25% of project participants received individual counseling; 24% exited the project into stable housing; and 53% obtained

7 47

employment or entered school during the project . Per participant feedback, 79% repor ted being satisfied with project services.

Living Well Project
Implemented through Center for Independent Living, this project provides services for Senior Citizens (aged 50 and over) who are coping with trauma and/or mental health issues associated with acquired disabilities.

Senior Citizens with acquired disabilities are one of the most difficult groups to reach with disability services. It is similarly difficult to intervene with this group’s developing mental heal th issues related to aging and the traumatic impact of acquiring one or more disabilities (such as loss of mobility, vision, hearing, et al). The core of the project is a wellness workshop series entitled “Living Well with a Disability”. Through a combin ation of education, goal setting, group and peer counseling, the workshop series is designed to promote positive attitudinal shifts in a population who, despite the tremendous need for care, are often typically not responsive to mental health intervention. The workshop series includes a 10 week, one to two -hour class conducted by Peer Facilitators, and an optional 30 -minute counseling session.

Counseling sessions are designed to monitor curriculum impact and continually assess individual goals and resource needs. This project serves up to 150 Older Adults a year.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project is to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and intervention; •   Strategies targeting the mental health needs of older adults.

In FY19, 52 Living Well workshops were conducted. Each Living Well Workshop series included the following sessions: Orientation; Goal Setting; Problem Solving; Healthy Reactions; Beating the Blues (Depression and Moods); Healthy Communication; Seeking Information; Physical Activity; Eating Well (Nutrition); Advocacy (Self and Systems Change); and Maintenance. T opics of Grief and Loss, Depression, Retirement, and Senior Invisibility were al so incorporated into the project . In all 118 Senior Citizens participated in the Living Well Workshops. Demographics of Workshop participants are outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N =118
Age Groups
26-59 (Adult) 4%
Age 60+ (Older Adult) 94%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Race
Asian 6%
Black or African American 46%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1%
White 35%
Other 3%

8 48

Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Caribbean 2%
Central American 2%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 7%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 89%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 20%
Chinese 3%
European 8%
Filipino 3%
Japanese 1%
Other 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 62%
Primary Language Used
English 90%
Spanish 2%
Other 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 62%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 3%
Heterosexual or Straight 75%
Other 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 21%
Disability
Difficulty seeing 5%
Difficulty hearing or Having Speech Understood 10%
Mental (not mental health) 5%
Physical/mobility disability 12%
Chronic health condition 15%
No Disability 11%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 42%

9 49

Veteran Status
Yes 2%
No 95%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 20%
Female 77%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Current Gender Identity
Male 20%
Female 76%
Transgender 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
During the reporting timeframe 16 outreac h and informational events were conducted reaching 317 individuals, with 249 individuals receiving further engagement services. There were 640 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals were as follows: 121 Mental Hea lth; 137 Physical Health; 109 Social Services; 101 Housing; 172 other unspecified servi ces. A total of 39% of project participants completed a Living Well Workshop Series. The workshop series received very positive feedback per participant se lf-report. Project participants reported 100% on all of the measures outlined below: feeling satisfied with the workshops; improvement in feeling satisfied in general; increased feeling of social supports; preparedness to make positive changes; and feeling less over whelmed and helpless.

In FY20, 63 Living Well workshops were conducted. Each Living Well Workshop series included the following sessions: Orientation; Goal Setting; Problem Solving; Healthy Reactions; Beating the Blues (Depression and Moods); Healthy Com munication; Seeking Information; Physical Activity; Eating Well (Nutrition); Advocacy (Self and Systems Change); and Maintenance. Topics of Grief and Loss, Depression, Retirement, and Senior Invisibility were al so incorporated into the project . In all 59 Senior Citizens participated in the Living Well Workshops. Demographics of Workshop participants are outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=59 *
Age Groups
26-59 (Adult) 2%
Age 60+ (Older Adult) 97%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%

0 50

Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
Asian 5%
Black or African American 54%
White 29%
Other 2%
More than one Race 5%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 32%
Asian Indian/South Asian 2%
Chinese 2%
European 19%
Filipino 2%
Middle Eastern 3%
More than one Ethnicity 2%
Other 12%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 27%
Primary Language Used
English 92%
Other 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 5%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 2%
Heterosexual or Stra ight 68%
Bisexual 2%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 29%
Disability
Difficulty seeing 5%
Difficulty hearing or Having Speech Understood 8%
Mental (not mental health) 5%
Physical/mobility disability 14%

1 51

Chronic health condition 22%
No Disability 31%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 15%
Veteran Status
Yes 2%
No 95%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 14%
Female 83%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Current Gender Identity
Male 14%
Female 71%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 15%
*Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

During the reporting timeframe 5 outreach and informational events were conducted reaching 84 individuals, with 235 individuals receiving further engagement services. Se rvices were moved to virtual format providing tele -workshops and tele-support services to accommodate the pandemic. There were 653 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals was as follows: 115 Mental Health; 147 Physical Health; 112 Social Services; 58 Housing; 221 other unspecified servi ces. A total of 39% of project participants completed a Living Well Workshop Series. Feedback per participant self -report was as follows:
•   100% reported they felt satisfied with the workshops; •   98% indicated an improvement in feeling satisfied in general; •   98% had increased feelings of social supports;
•   100% felt prepared to make positive changes; and
•   88% reported they felt less overwhelmed and helpless.

In FY21, 49 Living Well Wor kshop sessions were conducted. Each Living Well Workshop series included the following sessions: Orientation; Goal Setting; Problem Solving; Healthy Reactions; Beating the Blues (Depression and Moods); Healthy Communication; Seeking Information; Physical A ctivity; Eating Well (Nutrition); Advocacy (Self and Systems Change); and Maintenance. Topics of Grief and Loss, Depression, Retirement, and Senior Invisibility were al so incorporated into the project . In all 25 Senior Citizens participated in the Living Well Workshops. Demographics of Workshop participants are outlined below:

2 52

DEMOGRAPHICS N=25
Age Groups
26-59 (Adult) 16%
Age 60+ (Older Adult) 84%
Race
Asian 4%
Black or African American 56%
White 28%
Other 12%

Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Caribbean 4%
South American 4%
Other 8%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 36%
Eastern European 8%
European 20%
Filipino 4%
More than one Ethnicity 4%
Other 12%
Primary Language U sed
English 96%
Spanish 4%

Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 4%
Heterosexual or Straight 76%
Bisexual 8%
Other 4%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 8%

3 53

Disability
Physical/mobility disability 24%
Chronic health condition 24%

Other Disability 16%
No Disability 28%

Declined to Answer (or
Unknown)
8%
Veteran Status
Yes 4%
No 96%
Gender: Assigned Sex at Birth
Male 16%
Female 84%
Current Gender Identity
Male 16%
Female 80%
Other 4%
During the reporting timeframe 2 outreach and informational events were conducted reaching 12 individuals, with 93 unduplicated individuals receiving further engagement services. Services were mov ed to virtual format providing t ele-workshops and tele-support services to accommodate the pandemic. There were 595 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals was as follows: 60 Mental Health; 102 Physical Health; 106 Social Services; 48 Housing; 279 other unspecified servi ces. A total of 88% of project participants completed a Living Well Workshop Series. Feedback per participant self-report was as follows:
•   91% reported they felt satisfied with the workshops; •   91% indicated an improvement in feeling satisfied in general; •   91% had increased feelings of soc ial supports;
•   91% felt prepared to make positive changes; and
•   88% reported they felt less overwhelmed and helpless.

Projecct Successes:

To help seniors stay connected 96 tele -support group session s were held. Living Well Project virtual/tele- workshops were offered every Monday and tele -support groups were held every Tuesday. In December, laptops and technical training were provided to previous participants and also in May to participants who completed The Living Well Workshop Series.

Project Challenges:

The workshops were well attended with lively engag ement. Some Living Well participants gave painful testimonies of isolation, sadness and fear and others of loneliness. Many missed their families, their

4 54

grandchildren, and friends. Some needed to travel out of state to support adult children with life -threatening illnesses and two struggled with potentially life -threatening diagnoses themselves. There was a lot of uncertainty revolving around the COVID -19 pandemic. Many seniors had difficulties connecting with others due to the technological gap. The Workshop Series facilitator also had to learn systems she never had to use before.

Harnessing Hope Project
Implemented through GOALS for Women this project provided community-based, culturally competent, outreach and support services for African Americans residing in the South and West Berkeley neighborhoods who experienced traumatic life events including racism and s ocioeconomic oppression and had unmet mental health support needs. The primary goals of the p roject were to normalize stress responses and empower families through psycho -education, consciousness raising, strength -based coping skills, and supportive services through the following: Outreach through community presentations and “Mobile Tenting”; one-on-one supportive engagement services; screening and assessment; psycho -education; family education; support groups such as “Kitchen Table Talk groups (non -stigmatizing, culturally responsive, peer centered groups) and “Just Like Sunday Dinners” ( a space for African Americans from all generations to come together to gain supports from one another); workshops and classes; mental health referrals and community linkages; peer counseling and support. A key component of this pr oject was to train and mentor community leaders to become Peer Facilitators of Kitchen Table Talk and Just Like Sunday Din ner groups.

This project served approximately 50 -130 individuals a year.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project was to address and promote recovery and related functio nal outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence including the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priority: MHSOAC priorities were not required during the timeframe that this project was implemented.

In FY19, 29 individuals were served through this proje ct. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=29
Age Groups
0-15 (Children/Youth) 3%
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 17%
26-59 (Adult) 69%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 11%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 3% Black or African American 38%
White 7%
Other 14%
More than one Race 28%

5 55

Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 10%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Lat ino
Carribean 4%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 7% Other 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%

Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
African 3%
Asian Indian/South Asian 7%
More than one Ethnicity 10% Other 10%
Declined to Answer (o r Unknown) 52%

Primary Language Used
English 86%
Spanish 10%
Other 4%

Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual or Straight 62%
Queer 3%
Other 10%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 25%
Disability
Chronic Heart Condition 7% Other Disability 3%
No Disability 62%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 28%
Veteran Status
No 55%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 45%

Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 28%
Female 62%

6 56

Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 10%
Current Gender Identity
Male 28%
Female 62%
Genderqueer 3%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 7%

During the reporting timeframe 8 outreach presentations were conducted reaching 58 individuals, 29 of whom received supportive engagement services. Five facilitators were also trained. Primary services included psycho-education and promotion of mental health through one -on-one and telephone engagement, networking supports, and referrals . One Just Like Sunday Dinner group was held for 15 participants. There were 25 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and typ e of referrals were as follows: 6 Mental Health; 1 Physical Health; 2 S ocial Services; 2 Housing; and 14 other unspecified services. Lower numbers this year were due to a variety of staffing, and unforeseen programmatic constraints.

On a Satisfaction Su rvey that was conducted, project participants reported 100% on all of the follo wing measures: Felt respected ; would return if they or th eir family member needed help; e xperienced increased awareness of community services and supports; and i mproved their skills in coping with challenges.

In FY20, 22 individuals were served through this project. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=22*
Age Groups
0-15 (Children/Youth) 4%
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 18%
26-59 (Adult) 73%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 5%
Race
Asian 14%
Black or African American 82%
Other 5%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 77%
Asian Indian/South Asian 9%

7 57

Vietnamese 5%
More than one Ethnicity 5%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 5%
Primary Language Used
English 100%
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual or Straight 95%
Questioning or Unsure 5%
Disability
Chronic Health Condition 18%
No Disability 82%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Female 100%
Current Gender Ident ity
Female 100%
*Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

During the reporting timeframe 9 outreach presentations were conducted reaching 63 individuals, 16 of whom received supportive engagement services. Primary services included psycho -education and promotion of mental health through one -on-one and telephone engagement, networking supports, and referrals. Some services were able to continue during the pandemic, through phone and tele -conferencing. During the reporting timeframe the Traini ng of Trainers and Just like Sunday Dinners were not able to be held. There were 20 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type o f referrals were as follows: 8 Mental Health; 4 Social Services; 3 Housing; 5 other unspecified servic es.

On a Satisfaction Survey that was conducted, program participants reported the following:
•   100% Felt respected;
•   95% indicated they would return if they or their family member needed help; •   82% experienced increased awareness of community services an d supports; and •   95% improved their skills in coping with challenges.

8 58

In FY21, MHSA funded services did not continue with GOALS , as the program was no longer in operation.

A Request For Proposal (RFP) process was executed in April 2021 for these servi ces. In FY22, the SoulSpace project was i mplemented for African Americans in Berkeley.

SoulSpace Project
In FY22, following a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process, OnTrack Program Resources began implementing the SoulSpace Project for Afr ican Americans in Berkeley. This project assists African Americans in accessing culturally, ethnically, and linguistically responsive and trauma -informed prevention and early intervention services. Project services include: community education; outreach and en gagement; assessment; coaching; referrals; navigation supports; support groups; and life skills training.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project is to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, in cluding the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and intervention; •   Youth Engagement and Outreach Strategies that target secondary school and transition age youth. •   Strategies targeting the mental health needs of older adults.

As this project was not in operation in FY21, f uture MHSA Three Year Plans and Annual Updates will include a reporting on the dat a and activities.

Trauma Support Project for LGBTQIA+ Population
Implemented through the Pacific Center for Human Growth, this project provides outreach, engagement and support group services for individuals (18 and above) in the LGBTQIA+ community who are suffering from the impact of oppression, trauma and other life stressors. Particula r emphasis is on outreaching and providing supportive services to identified underserved populations within the local LGBTQIA+ community. Approximately 12 -15 weekly or bi-weekly support groups are held throughout the year targeting various populations and needs within the LBGTQIA+ community. Support groups are led by Peer Facilitator community volunteers who are trained in Group Facilitation/Conflict Resolution and who have opportunities to participate in additional Skill Building workshops in order to sh are methods used to address group challenges and to learn new facilitator techniques. Approximately 250 individuals a year are served through this project.

PEI Goals: The goal of this project is to address and promote recovery and related functional outcom es for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the prevention of suicide.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and intervention; •   Youth Engagement and Outreach Strategies that target secondary school a nd transition age youth. •   Strategies targeting the mental health needs of older adults.

9 59

In FY19, 40 outreach activities reached approximately 1,572 duplicated individuals. O utreach was provided at various locations including Street Fairs, Community Agenc ies, and area events. Through 15 Peer Support groups, 446 weekly or bi -weekly sessions were conducted which were all led by a trained facilitator. Peer Support Groups were as follows: Female to Male; Women Coming Out of Straight Marriage; Married/Once Married Gay/Bisexual Men’s Group; Queer Femmes; Transgender Support Group; Lesbian & Queer Women of Color; Partners of Trans and Gender Non -Conforming Folk; Middle Eastern Femmes; Senior Gay Men’s Group; Bi -sexual Women; Primetime Men (40’s -50’s); LezBold (ol d lesbians); Wicked Transcendent Folk; R.E.A.L. Queer (TAY), and QPAD – for Queer Men in their 20’s and 30’s. A total of 168 individuals participated in support groups throughout the year. Demographics on individuals served include the following:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=168
Age Groups
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 32%
26-59 (Adult) 54%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 13%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
Asian 8%
Black or African American 4%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 63%
White 1%
More than one race 16%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2%
Asian 8%
Black or African American 4%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 63%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 6%

0 60

Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Caribbean 8%
Central American 21%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 38%
Puerto Rican 13%
South American 8%
Other 8%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Caribbean 8%
Central American 21%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
African 4%
Asian Indian/South Asian 3%
Chinese 3%
Eastern European 10%
European 26%
Filipino 3%
Japanese 1%
Korean 1%
Middle Eastern 4%
Vietnamese 1%
African 4%
Asian Indian/South Asian 3%
More than one Ethnicity 12%
Other 4%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 28%
Primary Language Used
English 96%
Spanish 1%
Mandarin 1%
Other 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 24%
Heterosexual or Straight 4%
Bisexual 20%
Questioning or Unsure 5%
Queer 27%

1 61

Other 15%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 5%

Disability
Difficulty Hearing or Having Speech Understood 2%
Mental (not Mental Health) 6%
Physical/Mobility Disability 3%
Chronic Health Condition 6%
Other Disability 2%
No Disability 80%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%
Veteran Status
Yes 5%
No 91%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 24%
Female 36%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 40%
Current Gender Identity
Male 18%
Female 32%
Transgender 9%
Genderqueer 11%
Questioning or Unsure 8%
Other 18%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
During the reporting timeframe 16 new Peer Facilitators were trained, 98% of whom went on to facilitate peer group sessions. The offering of Skills Build ing Workshops was expanded to include trainings on:

Nonviolent Communication; Crisis Intervention; and Implicit Bias as it Relates to Race and workshops were provided to 51 Peer Facilitator participants. There were 221 referrals for additional services and supports.

The number and type of referrals was as follows: 50 Mental Health; 17 Physical Health; 13 Social Services; 4 Housing; 137 other unspecified services. To assess the project services, a self -administered Peer Support Group Survey was distribute d to all peer group members. A total of 123 Peer Support Group members (or 72%) completed the survey. Survey results were as follows:
•   100% indicated they would recommend the organization to a friend or family member; •   94% felt like staff and facilitators w ere sensitive to their cultural background; •   81% reported they deal more effectively with daily problems; •   84% indicated they have trusted people they can turn to for help; •   87% felt like they belong in their community.

2 62

A vast majority of individuals who com pleted the survey reported having improved social connections and community-building, and a deep gratitude for a safe environment to freely express and explore their authentic self.

In FY20, 11 outreach activities reached approximately 835 duplicated indiv iduals. Through 19 Peer Support groups, weekly or bi -weekly sessions were conducted which were all led by a trained facilitator. While some of the long time running Peer Support Groups continued, a few were discontinued and the following five new groups w ere added: Queer Crips United - for people who live at the intersection of LGBTQ!A+ and Disability; Thursday Night Men’s Group for gay, bisexual, transgender and cisgender men; Parents and Caregivers of Trans Tweens; Parents and Caregivers of Trans Youth o f all ages; and Love Letter - for Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) Women of Color. A total of 151 individuals participated in support groups throughout the year. Demographics on individua ls served include the following:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=151*
Age Groups
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 28%
26-59 (Adult) 41%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 26%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 1%
Asian 11%
Black or African American 6%
White 57%
Other 3%
More than one Race 12%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 11%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Caribbean 1%
Central American 2%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 5%
Puerto Rican 1%
South American 1%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 3%
Asian Indian/South Asian 3%

3 63

Chinese 6%
Eastern European 10%
European 27%
Filipino 1%
Japanese 1%
Korean 1%
Middle Eastern 4%
Vietnamese 1%
More than one Ethnicity 7%
Other 2%
Declined to Answer (or Unkn own) 24%
Primary Language Used
English 98%
Spanish 1%
Mandarin 1%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 23%
Heterosexual or Straight 7%
Bisexual 25%
Questioning or Unsure 2%
Queer 25%
Other 17%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%

Disability
Difficulty Seeing 2%
Difficulty Hearing or Having Speech Understood 6%
Mental (not Mental Health) 8%
Physical/Mobility Disability 6%
Chronic Health Condition 9%
Other Disability 1%
No Disability 64%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Veteran Status

4 64

Yes 1%
No 99%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 26%
Female 50%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 24%
Current Gender Identity
Male 12%
Female 34%
Transgender 27%
Genderqueer 8%
Questioning or Unsure 3%
Other 13%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown ) 4%
*Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

During the reporting timeframe 25 new Peer Facilitators were trained. The offering of Skills Building Workshops that included trainings on: Nonviolent Communication; Crisis Intervention; and Imp licit Bias as it Relates to Race and workshops were provided to 57 Peer Facilitator participants. Services were adjusted to accommodate for the pandemic and support g roup and other services were able to continue virtually on the Zoom platform. There were 93 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals was as follows: 45 Mental Health; 11 Physical Health; 3 Housing; 34 other unspecified services.

To assess the project services, a self -administered Peer Support Group Su rvey was distributed to all peer group members. Survey results were as follows:
•   92% indicated they would recommend the organization to a friend or family member; •   88% felt like staff and facilitators were sensitive to their cultural background; •   84% reported they deal more effectively with daily problems; •   76% indicated they have trusted people they can turn to for help; •   76% felt like they belong in their community.

Per contractor report, they received complaints from Queer and Trans, Black, Indigenous and P eople of Color (QTBIPOC) group members regarding their difficulties bringing their full selves (all of their identity markers, including race, ethnicity) to groups, citing examples of micro -aggressions. To mitigate this lack of safety, listening se ssions were held. Plans were put in place to train new QTBIPOC facilitators, develop new required group agreements and trainings, and implement a QTBIPOC Support Gro up.

In FY21, 12 outreach activitie s reached approximately 155 individuals. A total of 480 support groups were conducted. Through 20 Peer Support groups, weekly or bi -weekly sessions were conducted which were all led by a trained facilitator on Zoom. All of the long time running peer groups were offered and one new group was added. A total of 69 individuals participated in support groups throughout the year.

Demographics on individua ls served included the following:

5 65

DEMOGRAPHICS N=151*
Age Groups
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 26%
26-59 (Adult) 46%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 20%
Declined to Answer (o r Unknown) 8%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 4%
Asian 13%
Black or African American 6%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1%
White 41%
More than one Race 14%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 21%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Caribbean 1%
Central American 1%
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 1%
South American 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 4%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 4%
Asian Indian/South As ian 3%
Chinese 7%
Eastern European 6%
European 43%
Filipino 1%
Korean 1%
Vietnamese 1%
More than one Ethnicity 16%
Other 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 9%

6 66

Primary Language Used
English 100%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 25%
Heterosexual or Straight 6%
Bisexual 12%
Questioning or Unsure 3%
Queer 22%
Other 29%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%

Disability
Difficulty Seeing 1%
Difficulty Hearing or Having Speech Understood 3%
Mental (not Mental Health) 4%
Physical/Mobility Disability 6%
Chronic Health Condition 14%
No Disability 36%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 36%
Veteran Status
Yes 1%
No 99%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 30%
Female 36%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 34%
Current Gender Identity
Male 6%
Female 23%
Transgender 33%
Genderqueer 9%
Questioning or Unsure 4%
Other 23%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 2%

7 67

During the reporting timeframe 38 Peer Facilitators were trained. The offering of Skills Building Workshops that included trainings on Intersectionality; Disability, Justice and Accessibility; and Micro - aggressions were provided to 38 Peer Facilitator participants. Services were adjusted to ac commodate for the pandemic and support g roup and other services were able to continue virtually on the Zoom platform. There were 91 referrals for additional services and supports. The number and type of referrals was as follows: 51 Mental Health; 7 Physical Health; 7 Social Services; 26 other unspecified services. To assess the project services, a self-administered Peer Support Group Survey was distributed to all peer group members. Survey results were as follows:
•   93% indicated they would recommend the organization to a friend or family member; •   79% felt like staff and facilitators were sensitive to their cultural background; •   93% reported they deal more effectively with daily problems; •   71% indicated they have trusted people they can turn to for help; •   86% felt like they belong in their community.

Project Successes:
•   Of the 20 peer support groups t hat were running prior to Shelter-In-Place, 19 groups successfully transitioned to Zoom and flourished on the virtual platform and in addition, 1 new group was launched. •   Staff increased consultation meeting frequency to support the facilitators for a porti on of the fiscal year. •   Peer groups gained returning attendees who had moved out of town and who, for a variety of reasons, ie, disability, transportation barriers and child -care and other caregiving needs, were able to attend due to online access.

•   Three 6-hour Facilitator Orientation and Trainings were provided to community members welcoming them as trained peer group facilitators.

•   Three Diversity, Equity and Inclusion trainings were offered: Intersectionality; Disability, Justice and Accessibility; and Micro-aggressions.

•   A Social Work student provided case management and wellness checks to older adults.

•   A handful of peer groups requested to hold their meetings throughout the winter break when the agency is typically closed for all services.

•   Peer group facilitators were invited to join the white accountability group or the Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) affinity group (spaces to discuss various challenges, explore and examine topics relating to privilege and oppression, dynamics of po wer, etc.) to explore how they show up in relationships for added accountability and support.

•   Virtual/online outreach started to pick up by th e end of the fiscal year. T o make up for the reduction in outreach opportunities, email lists were utilized with community partners and networks and social media platforms, such as Meet -up, Instagram, and F acebook to inform and engage the community. •   A new pilot clinical consultation ‘on -call’ system was offered for facilitators to access a clinician to be invited to their virtual group space as needed should a group member bring mental health concerns and/or behaviors outside of the peer group scope of service. This was utilized twice during the reporting timeframe.

Project Challenges:

•  Continual adjustment to being in the virtual space. There was a learning curve for peer group facilitators in navigating the virtual space, for which program staff and fellow peer group facilitators provided support and guidance. Zoom safety t ips and guidelines were created to assist the facilitators.

8 68

•  Some community members, including a few peer group facilitators, were no longer able to attend their peer group when it moved to a virtual space due to a lack of privacy in their home, anxiet y when in virtual spaces, or the lack of the necessary equipment and/or sufficient internet connection.

•  Since paper forms were adapted to be received digitally, many group members had serious

challenges completing and submitting the demograph ic forms.

•  Due to COVID-19, the typical in-person outreach opportunities drastically declined.

•  Peer group facilitators expressed concern for their group members’ stress level in regards to the anxiety-producing November Presidential election, and t he aftermath of the January 6th violent events in Washington DC.

PREVENTION & EARLY INTERVENTION COMBINED PROGRAMS
Prevention Program – Includes a set of related activities to reduce risk factors for developing a potentially serious mental illness and to build protective factors.

Early Intervention Program – Provides treatment and other services and interventions, including relapse prevention, to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the applicable negative outcomes that may result from untreated mental illness.

The City of Berkeley Prevention & Early Intervention combined programs are as follows:

Mental Health Peer Education Program
The Mental Health Peer Education Progra m was added through the MHSA FY19 Annual Update. This program implements a mental health curriculum for 9th graders, and an internship program for a cohort of high school students, in Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), in an effort to increase stude nt awareness of common mental health difficulties, resources, and healthy coping and intervention skills. Through this program students are trained by a licensed BUSD clinician to conduct class presentations covering common mental health disorders, on and off campus resources, as well as basic coping and intervention skills.

PEI Goals: The goal of this program is to bring about mental health, including the reduction of school failure or dropout.

PEI Priorities:
•   Youth Engagement and Outreach Strategies that target secondary school and transition age youth, with a priority on partnership with college mental health programs. •   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited to, anxiety, depression, and psychosi s.

In FY19, a Berkeley High School (BHS) Counselor, led and facilitated weekly MEET trainings throughout the school year for thirteen high school students for the purpose of establishing and implementing a peer -led mental health education curriculum. Week ly trainings prepared MEET students to provide classroom presentations. Seven pairs of MEET students provided a total of twenty -eight psycho-educational presentations in 9 th grade classes. The presentations aimed to reduce mental health stigma, teach copi ng skills, create awareness about depression and anxiety, and demonstrate to students how to access mental health resources on campus and in the community. A total of 882 students were served. Four encore follow -

9 69

up presentations were provided to 108 stude nts in the 10th grade. Additional MEET student accomplishments were as follows:
•   Provided stress management tips through interactive presentations in ten classrooms, before the 1 st semester exams to assist 271 students in increasing stress reduction strate gies; •   Assisted in designing surveys to measure students’ knowledge before and after the classroom presentations;
•   Conducted lunch -time meetings to assist 11 students through peer -to-peer services and supports; •   Distributed 1000 bookmarks with Crisis Servic es on them to 9th graders and other high school students; •   Assisted in designing mental health survey questions that were used in the school -wide Berkeley High School Student (BHS) Survey;
•   Created videos to promote mental health awareness: “MEET Members Sp eak Out”, “Mental Health and Homeless Youth”, and “Welcome to the Health Center”; •   Assisted in designing a MEET Website with a resources page; •   Created a MEET Instagram account, promoting mental health awareness; •   Participated in the school -run podcast, “The BHS Jacket”; •   Attended the BMH MHSA Advisory Committee meeting to voice the need and advocate for increased funding for mental health resources at Berkeley public schools; and •   Hosted a panel discussion to help incoming seniors manage stress.

MEET conducted two surveys to measure learning outcomes of the 9 th grade classroom presentations. A pre and post test was conducted. A majority of the 9 th graders surveyed improved their scores from pre t o post- test. Areas measured were as follows:

1.   Knowledge of menta l health resources – where to find them

2.   Identifying symptoms of anxiety and depression

3.   Mental health stigma – willingness to talk about mental health

4.   Learning mental health coping strategies

5.   How to respond to a mental health crisis, especially suicidal ide ation Program outcomes showed that numerous 9 th grade student participants as well as 100% of 9 th grade teachers, verbally reported being satisfied with MEET’s classroom presentations. The BHS Health Center also reported a correlative increase in student self-referrals after MEET’s presentations. Students often arrived at the Health Center holding a Crisis Resource Bookmark, of which MEET distributed.

Demographics on the 13 students who were in the MEET program were as follows: 31% Male; 69% Female; 15% African American; 15% Asian; 4 6% Caucasian; 8% Latinx ; 16% mixed race. A total of 1,285 students participated in prevention services offered by MEET. Demographics on student participants were as follows: 16% African American; 19% Asian; 29 % Caucasian; 18% Latinx; and 18% were of mixed race or did not specify race or ethnicity. Additional demographics on PEI funded programs at BUSD were provided in aggregate format for the following programs: MEET, Dynamic Mindfulness (DMind), African America Success Project and Supporti ve Schools. These aggregated d emographics for FY19 are provided following the DMind program. In FY20 and FY21 thi s program was not in operation.

0 70

Dynamic Mindfulness Program (DMind)

The Dynamic Mindfulness (DMind) program was added through the MHSA FY19 Annual Update. BUSD partners with the Niroga Institute to provide DMind for students and staff at Berkeley High, Berkeley Technology Academy, Berkeley Independent Study, MLK Jr., Willard, and Longfellow .    DMind is an evidence-based trauma-informed program in each of the BUSD middle and high schools. Validated by independent researchers as a transformative program for teaching children and youth, skills for optimal stress resilience and healing from trauma, the DMind program integrates mindful action, breathing, and centering into an intervention that can be implemented in the classroom in 5 -15 minute sessions, 3 to 5 times a week. This program has proven to be successful with vulnerable students who are exhibiting signs of trauma/PTSD from Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and/or disengagement from school, chronic absences, and significant behavioral challenges, including emotion regulation, impulse control, and anger management. DMind also enables teacher well -being, which has been shown to enhance student learni ng.

The program components include in-class and after-school DMind sessions for students, student peer leadership development, training and coaching of school staff, and program evaluation.

PEI Goals: The goal of this program is to bring about mental health, including the reduction of school failure or dropout and the removal of children from their homes.

PEI Priorities:
•   Youth engagement and outreach s trategies that target secondary school and transition age youth, with a priority on partnership with college mental health programs. •   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited to, anxiety, depression, and psychosis.

In FY19, planning, design and customization of DMind for ea ch school site was conducted. DMind training for staff was provided, as well as post -training follow-up supports. Niroga Instructors provided in - classroom DMind instruction. DMind curriculum supports, including the DMind video library was also made available.

1 71

According to the DMind program report, specific program outcomes were as follows:
•   School Administrators and staff, as well as students, enthusiastically embraced the DMind program; •   Special Education students seemed to especially take to DMind. In addition to other classrooms, 13 Special Education classes were provided with the DMind program:
•   The DMind program for chronic absentees led to a 1.8% increase in attendance.

A total of 520 students and 117 staff were served through this program in FY19, as follows:

School Number of Students Served Number of Staff Served Berkeley High School 125 75
Berkeley Technology Academy 28 25
Martin Luther King Middle School 215 6
Williard Middle School 152 11
TOTAL 520 117
Data provided by BUSD for FY19, which combined demographics for the Supportive Schools Project, the MEET Program, and DMind, is outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 3,065
Age Group
0-15 (Children/Youth) 81%
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 13%
26-59 (Adult) 6%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) <1%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 1%
Asian 11%
Black or African American 19%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <1%
White 41%
Other 1%
More than one race 4%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 9%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 14%

2 72

Primary Language Used
English 86%
Spanish 7%
Mandarin 1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 6%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 7%
Heterosexual or Straight 49%
Bisexual 2%
Questioning or unsure of sexual orientation <1%
Queer <1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 41%
Disability
Mental domain not including a mental illness
(including but not limited to a learning disability,
developmental disability, dementia)
9%
Physical/mobility domain <1%
Veteran Status
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at Birth
Male 58%
Female 42%
Current Gender Identity
Male 54%
Female 39%
Transgender <1%
Questioning or unsure of gender identity <1%
Another gender identity (Non- Binary) <1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 6%
Due to the pandemic, in FY20, all supports were shifted to online in the second half of the school year. 380 students participated in DMind during the reporting timeframe. Demographics on individuals served were not provided by BUSD. In FY21, all supports remained online. Data on individuals served were not provided by BUSD. Per anecdotal evidence from site leadership, the program presents positive use.

3 73

African American Success Project

The African American Success Project (AASP) w as first implemented in FY19 in four Berkeley Unified School District Schools (King, Longfellow, Willard and Berkeley High School). Closely aligned with the work of Berkeley’s 2020 Vision, the AASP works with African American youth and  their families  to actively engage students in the classroom and school life while creating a pathway for their long -term success. The project implements a three -pronged approach that includes case management and mentorship (which are individualized and tailored to meet each student’s needs), community building, and family engagement. Through this approach a case manager engages and works with each student on school success planning. This work includes establishing student check -ins, family connections, teacher and staff collaborations, advocacy, and community building sessions. The project supports students who have disproportionately faced barriers in Berkeley public schools to promote an individual’s learning, mental, and socio-emotional well-being. During the first year the project team worked with 84 students and their families while assessing the effectiveness of the project and identifying ways to strengthen the service model. One key finding was that the project could only have limited impact when staff were spread a cross four school sites.

Following FY19, the project was only going to be implemented at Longfellow. A second key learning was that services could be strengthened if they were integrated into the school day through a class that African American students could elect to take that would provide a safe space to focus on ongoing social and emotional development, skill -building, habits and mindsets that enable self -regulation, interpersonal skills, and perseverance and resilience. The class would be facilitate d by a Counselor/Instructor who would follow-up with students in one -on-one counseling sessions on issues of concern that are raised in class and

4 74

would provide referrals to mental health services and supports as needed. To support the implementation of this additional component, through the FY20 Annual Update the Division allocated PEI funds to BUSD to support this project.

PEI Goals: The goal of this program is to bring about mental health, including the reduction of school failure and the removal of ch ildren from their homes.

PEI Priorities:
•   Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and intervention. •   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited to, anxiety, depression, and psyc hosis.

During the FY20 school year students participated/were enrolled in Umoja - a daily elective class offered through the African American Success Project (AASP), at Longfellow Middle School. Umoja provides African American students a safe affinity space to explore their cultural heritage and identity, while building positive peer relationships and establishing relational trust with adults. Umoja provides an ongoing focus on social and emotional development, including building skills, habits and mindsets that enable self-regulation, interpersonal skills, perseverance and resilience.

In addition to the opportunities identified above, Umoja provides a unique chance to expose learners to content traditionally overlooked by educational institution s. Umoja course lessons are tou ted in African and African American cultural percepts, and are composed to guide African American learners through:
•   An exploration of their identities;
•   An interrogation (questioning or query) of their ancestral history; •   Development of a positive sense of purpose and cultural pride; •   Envisioning their futures and ou tlining a path for fulfillment; •   Developing an awareness of their communal role.

Direct services for parents and guardians:

Umoja seeks to increase entry points for caregivers t o be informed and involved in their child’s learning.

Highlights in this area include:
•  Community meetings/engagements (monthly typically).

•  Coordinating and hosting Parent teacher conferences. •  Individual parent meetings/contacts, including advising, problem -solving, and updates regarding student prog ress.

•  Coordinating and hosting community events: Kwanzaa Celebration, Black History Month events and activities.

Direct services for students (academic, social, behavioral ):

•  School-day cultural enrichment designed to uplift and empower African American learners using African centered pedagogical approaches;

•  Equity centered support sessions (weekly) ;

•  Structured class check -in sessions.

In FY20, 23 students were provided services through this program. Outlined below are demographics on individuals served:

5 75

DEMOGRAPHICS N=23
Age Groups
Children/Youth (0-15) 100%
Race
Black or African American 74%
More than one Race 26%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
More than one Ethnicity 17%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
Black/African American 74%
More than one ethnicity 4%
Other 4%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%
Primary Language
English 99%
Other 1%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Other 43%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 70%
Female 30%
Current Gender Identity
Male 70%
Female 30%
In FY21, 63 students participated in this project. Outlined below are demographics on individuals served through this project:

6 76

DEMOGRAPHICS N=63
Age Group
Children/Youth (0-15) 100%
Race
Black or African American 68%
More than one Race 11%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx 21%
Primary Language
English 98%
Other 2%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Other 8%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 56%
Female 44%
Current Gender Identity
Male 56%
Female 44%

7 77

ACCESS AND LINKAGE TO TREATMENT PROGRAM
and COMBINED PROGRAMS

8 78

ACCESS & LINKAGE TO TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Access and Linkage to Treatment Program - Connects children who are seriously emotionally disturbed, and adults and seniors with severe mental illness as early in the onset of these conditions as practicable, to medically necessary care and treatment, including but not limited to care provided by county mental health programs.

The City of Berkeley Access & Linkage to Treatment program that was in operation during this reporting timeframe was as follows:

Homeless Outreach and Treatment Team (HOTT)
The Homeless Outreach and Treatment Team (HOTT) program was established out of an effort to address the homeless crisis, and as a result of input received through various MHSA community program planning processes. Utilizing a portion o f PEI and CSS funds, blended with reali gnment and general funds HOTT was a pilot program to support homeless mentally ill individuals in Berkeley and to connect them into the web of services that exist within the system of care. Key program components inc luded the following: Persistent and Consistent Outreach; Supportive Case Management; Linkage to Care; and Treatment.

PEI Goals: The goal of this pro gram was to connect individuals who have severe mental illnesses as early in the onset of these conditions as practicable, to medically necessary care and treatment, including but not limited to, care provided by county mental health programs.

PEI Priorities:
•   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited t o, anxiety, depression, and psychosis.

A local consultant, Resource Development Associates (RDA), was hired to conduct a dedicated independent evaluation to assess the program accomplishments and to ascertain whether HOTT should continue past the initial funding period. The initial report i n FY18 showed many positive findings including the following:

Ø   HOTT was serving as an important resource for the local community and homeless service continuum; Ø   The program had been very effective in persistent and consis tent outreach, especially for chronically homeless individuals with a history of refusing services; Ø   HOTT met individual where they were , in parks, encampments, motels; Ø   The program had successfully connected homeless individuals to critical resources and s ervice linkages.

In FY19, 147 individuals were served through this program. Demographics on individuals that received services through this pilot project were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 147
Age Groups
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 4%
26-59 (Adult) 41%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 14%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 41%

9 79

Race
Asian 3%
Black or African American 42%
White 40%
Other 15%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 7%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino 8%
Primary Language Used
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Current Gender Identity
Male 57%
Female 42%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 1%
Due to the nature of the many brief interactions a ttempting to engage with individuals , as well as trying to not put up barriers to bringing them into services, some data wasn’t able to be collected in order to best support effective service provision.

The RDA Homeless Outreach and Treatment Team Final Evaluation Report (posted on the City of Berkeley MHSA Plans and Updates webpage) covered the timeframe from January 2018 – February 2020, showed the following outcomes:
•   A total of 4,435 to tal encounters were conducted with individuals who were either enrolled or non - enrolled in the program, averaging 171 encounters per month; •   The number of contacts provided in -person in the field was 73%, while 26% were provided by phone; •   A total of 81% of HOTT encounters were with individuals who were enrolled in the program; •   Enrolled individuals had an average of 20 total encounters with HOTT staff, with an average of 4 encounters per month;

0 80

•   During encounters, HOTT staff provided at least 1,845 material supports and services (including food, transportation or BART or bus passes, Hygiene Kits, Emergency Housing Vouchers, Blankets , etc.); to respond to an individuals immediate and longer -term needs; •   During 488 encounters, HOTT provided emergency or temporar y housing vouchers (e.g., for a motel) to individuals who required immediate shelter;
•   Approximately thr ee-quarters of enrolled individuals (75%) and over a third of non -enrolled individuals (38%) were referred or connected to housing support services; •   In addition to connecting individuals to housing services, HOTT also connected individuals to other supportive services to help reduce or address initial barriers to obtaining housing; •   Approximately 27% of HOTT participants and 6% of non-enrolled individuals s uccessfully enrolled in social service benefits. In comp arison, only 9% of HOTT participants and 1% of non -enrolled individuals ultimately enrolled in mental health services; •   Over 58% of all HOTT participants , and 9% of non-enrolled individuals obtained e mergency or temporary housing (e.g., motel or shelter) at some point during their engagement with HOTT. In comparison, 12% of HOTT participants and 1% of non-enrolled individuals obtained permanent housing;
•   To assess changes in self -sufficiency, HOTT staff completed a Client Self -Sufficiency Matrix (SSM) on enrolled participants at program intake, on a quarterly basis after program enrollment, and/or at program discharge. Overall, HOTT participants SSM scores remained relatively unchanged from baseline to follow-up.

During interviews that were conducted with several HOT T existing and previous participants regarding their experience with the program, interviewees reported the following:
•   “They help people, not just me. I introduce people on the street to them , and I say you can talk to the HOTT team and they will help you.”
•   “I really didn’t expect anything, but when I called the City, they said someone [from HOTT] would meet me right then. They got me a hotel room that day. I wasn’t expecting the City to help. ” •   “They were so helpful. I felt like if I didn’t get the hotel room, they would have let me stay at their personal house.”
In addition to these interviews, RDA conducted focus groups with HOTT participants during a previous year of the evaluation, and developed brief impact stories based on participant experiences. In o ne of the impact stories, the individual self-report was as follows:
“I would still be on the streets and probably dead if it wasn’t for HOTT. I could have died and no one would have cared. Doctors told me I had months to live and I gave up on living. I gave up on everything for help.

No one cared but the HOTT team did care. I’m the type of person that never asks for help, and here they were offering to help and they never gave up on me. I li ved on the same spot for six years and never got medical care. They checked up on me and came back multiple times, even though I was turning them away in the beginning. I figured HOTT team was just like the other programs where they would just disappear after the first meeting. But I know the HOTT team is there. And everything the HOTT team said they would do came true. Now I am in hospice care getting the care that I need. I don’t know how much longer I have to live, but it’s a hell of a lot longer than a couple months which is what the doctors said. This gives me the opportunity to live my life with dignity. The HOTT team provided me with the positive energy just like hospice care that is so needed for people like me.”

1 81

In FY20, 616 individuals were served through this project. Demographics on individuals that received services through this pilot project were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 616
Age Groups
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 2%
26-59 (Adult) 36%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 16%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 46%
Race
Asian 4%
Black or African American 36%
White 45%
More than one Race 1%
Other 7%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Hispanic 7%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
Declined to Answer (or U nknown) 100%
Primary Language Used
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Gender: Assigned S ex at Birth
Male 61%
Female 37%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 2%
Current Gender Identity
Male 61%

2 82

Female 37%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 2%

Flex funds were used to provide various supports for HOTT program participants. In FY20, 57 participants were provided hotel stays, and 142 flex funds were used for 46 individuals on the following: 113 food and groceries; 15 transportation; 9 clothing/hygiene; 4 household items; 1 housing.

HOTT, planned as a short term pilot project, was initially slated to wrap up in April of 2020. During the last four months of FY20, the duties of the HOTT team were redirected due to the pandemic and focused on encampment support and response. As discussed in the HOTT final report, the HOTT team provided important community functions: providing flexible and broadly available service to community requests, relatively quick response to unhoused individuals experiencing mental health issues, and broad services to a large number of individuals. The HOTT  team linked a large number of individuals to resources, housing, service providers, and short term housing during their pilot.

A result of the COVID-19 pandemic was a shift from many in-person services to telephonic or tele-health.

The incidence of the pandemic changed the face of services and resources throughout the landscape, including systems of care and access to them. The data used for the final HOTT report, for example, was truncated due to the unavailability of consistent information and the redirection of services as dictated by the City of Berkeley and its Emergency Operations Center. Similarly, data gathered after February 2020 is likely less reflective of the services as planned, but more in the emergency response and shift of focus to emergency support of vulnerable communities and individuals. Maintaining regular staffing was also difficult in this pilot. Since the positions were temporary project based appointments, any staff who were hired for this team did not have job security with the City of Berkeley unless they transferred with a pre- existing permanent career status. This resulted in the exit of two staff during this time period who found other employment.

HOTT continued to be in operation until March 2021, when the Homeless Full Service Partnership was fully operational. As the program continued past the original projected end-date and final evaluation timeline, data, successes and challenges in FY21 are outlined below. In FY21, 91 individuals were served. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 91
Age Groups
25-44 years 21%
45-64 25%
65 years and older 8%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 46%
Race
Black or African American 37%
Latino/a/x 5%
White 43%

3 83

Other 15%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Declined to State (or Unknown) 100%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at Birth
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Current Gender Identity
Male 58%
Female 40%
Transgender 2%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
In FY21 Flex funds were used to provide various supports for HOTT program pa rticipants including: Hotel stays/rental or housing a ssistance for 42 participants; f ood/groceries for 26 participants; b us passes or transportation for 3 participants; and on Pp armacy needs for 1 participant.

Program Successes:

The HOTT pilot demonstrat ed that a dedicated team of workers could effectively engage and work with a large number of unhoused residents providing short term services and connections to longer term treatment and care. It also demonstrated that the team could be flexible in redirec ting its efforts to support the needs of the unhoused community during the pandemic:
•   HOTT was responsive to both enrolled and unenrolled individuals when providing outreach and engagement: responding to community referrals, providing direct in -person outreach, and responding to immediate service calls and needs.
•   The project provided an array of material supports, including but not limited to basic necessities, transportation (direct and voucher), hygiene kits, emergency housing/respite support, COVID -related supplies (masks, testing, resource information, sanitizer, etc.). •   HOTT facilitated linkages and referrals to treatment, housing, primary care, material support, and other community resources.
•   Community needs were supported by encampment outreach by th e HOTT, including outreach, material support, and other COVID related needs.

4 84

Program Challenges :

With the change in HOTT’s mission and staffing, it became increasingly difficult to effectively serve the community. The needs and resources in the communit y, especially due to COVID -19, drastically changed:
•   Staff left the team steadily over this time period from a supervisor and 4 staff until only one staff was left, and then the program ended.
•   With the pandemic, many of the resources to which the HOTT team would normally link clients had either: changed their hours, gone to only remote service, changed their services available, or closed their doors.
•   The directions from the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during the pandemic were not consistent due to the changing nature of the COVID -19 response. This also made consistent services difficult to maintain.
•   Since most of the services HOTT was directed to perform during this time period were COVID -19 encampment outreach related, the previous linkage services were no longer the focus of the team and its work.

ACCESS AND LINKAGE TO TREATMENT AND

PREVENTION & EARLY INTERVENTION COMBINED PROGRAM

Prevention Program – Includes a set of related activities to reduce risk factors for developing a potentially serious mental illness and to build protective factors.

Early Intervention Program – Provides treatment and other services and interventions, including relapse prevention, to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the applicable negative outcomes that may result from untreated mental illness.

Access and Linkage to Treatment Program – Connects children who are seriously emotionally disturbed, and adults and seniors with severe mental illne ss as early in the onset of these conditions as practicable, to medically necessary care and treatment, including but not limited to care provided by county mental health programs.

The City of Berkeley has one combined Prevention, Early Intervention, and Access and Linkage to Treatment combined program:

High School Youth Prevention Program
This program operates in conjunction with other health related services offered at Berkeley High School (BHS) and Berkeley Technology Academy (BTA) to provide young peopl e with the information and individual support they need to make positive and healthy decisions in their lives. The program includes:
outreach activities designed to provide students with basic information around the risks of certain behaviors, and ways to protect themselves and make positive and safer decisions; classroom presentations to enable students to receive more in -depth information around a variety of health topics and available resources, and provide the opportunity for students to do a personal a ssessment of risk and current lifestyle choices; drop -in crisis and counseling services; individual appointments to identify young people who may need more intensive intervention; and short -term treatment. The individual appointments, held at the school -based health center, provide young people with the opportunity to hold very in -depth discussions around the choices they are making and the risks that are involved in their choices. They receive guidance about

5 85

changes they can make to reduce or eliminate the ir risks, and are given the opportunity to identify barriers that might exist for them that prevent them from making healthier choices. In addition, they complete a 40 question, in-depth HEADSSS (Home, Education, Activities, Drugs/Alcohol, Sexuality, Safet y, Suicidality) assessment. Based on the outcome of the individual appointment and/or assessment, a young person may be referred to either a medical or mental health professional for follow -up care and intervention and/or treatment. Approximately 2 ,600 Berkeley High School Students and 100 B -Tech students receive some level of services through this program each year.

This program was implemented in FY13 and has become a successful partnership between BUSD and the Public Health and Mental Health Divisions of Berkeley’s Health, Housing & Community Services (HHCS) Department. As the program has developed, the staffing struct ure has increased and evolved to better meet the needs of the participants of both BHS and B -Tech. Additionally, BMH has been involved in implementing and assessing the Cognitive, Behavioral, Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) as a model of care at these locations. The need for additional supports and resources for this program will continue to be accessed and adjusted accordingl y.

PEI Goals: The goal of this program is to bring about mental health, including the reduction of school failure or dropout.

PEI Priorities:
•   Youth engagement and outreach strategies that target secondary school and transition age youth . •   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited to, anxiety, depression, and psychosis.

In FY19, approximately 1,059 students at BHS and BTA received services at the school’s Student Health Center, with 1,511 visits for Behavioral Health Individual sessions, and 321 visits for Behavioral Health Group sessions. Demographics on youth served are outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=1,059
Age Groups
0-15 (Children/Adult) 6%
16-25 (Transition Age Youth) 13%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 81%
Race
Asian 7%
Black or African American 20%
White 33%
More than one Race 17%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 7%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 16%

6 86

Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 84%
Primary Language
Declined to Answer (or Unknow n) 100%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 66%
Female 34%
Current Gender Identity
Male 66%
Female 34%
In FY20, approximately 801 st udents at BHS and B-Tech received services at the school’s Student Health Center. A total of 325 individuals received Behavioral Health services with 1,206 visits for Behavioral Health Individual sessions, and 169 visits for Behavioral Health Group sessions. Demographics on youth served are outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=801
Age Groups
14-18 (Youth) 100%
Race
Asian 6%
Black or African American 19%
White 36%
More than one Race 20%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 3%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano 16%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 84%

7 87

Primary Language
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 30%
Female 70%
Current Gender Identity
Male 30%
Female 68%
Students who identified as either transgender, gender
queer, or gender non -conforming
2%
The last day of in -person classes was on March 12 th due to the pandemic and related school closure. Mental Health in-person and group services were suspended the following day and on April 28 th a Warm Line was implemented to support student’s mental health needs.

Results on a survey from the Alameda County School Health Center Evaluation for BHS and BTA students was as follows:
•   100% reported that the peopl e who work at the Health Center “treat me with respect” and “keep my information private”;
•   100% reported that the Health Center “helped me to feel like there is an adult at school who cares about me”;
•   100% reported that the Health Center “is easy to get he lp from when I need it”, “is a good place to go if I have a problem”, and “helps me to meet many of my health needs”; •   98% reported that the people who work at the Health Center “listen carefully to what I have to say”; •   98% of students surveyed reported tha t the Health Center “helps me to miss less school or class time than going somewhere else for help”;
•   97% reported that “the Health Center helped me to deal with stress/anxiety better”.

Program Successes:
•   Applied for and was awarded the SB-82 Crisis Triage Grant in order to fund 1.0 FTE Behavioral Health Clinician II position, which enabled more consistent and reliable provision of assessment and crisis assessment services;

8 88

•   In response to COVID -19, shelter in place restrictions, and transition to virtual l earning, the Mental Health team developed and implemented a “Mental Health Warm Line” for students, parents, and school staff;
•   Provided ongoing individual Mental Health remote tele -health services from March through June 2020 for all existing Health Cente r clients;
•   Increased awareness and the de -stigmatization of services; •   Increased access to services for historically marginalized student communities; •   Increased BHS campus presence through several tabling events, presentations, and gatherings with students, families, and school staff;
•   Successful internal/external linkages to ongoing care; •   Ongoing collaborative partnerships with school administration, teachers, and school -based programs; •   Diverse/eclectic staff backgrounds supported embedding foundational fr amework of cultural humility across clinical practice; and
•   Maintained a 100% staff retention.

Program Challenges:
•   Student need continued to exceed clinician/team capacity during the months where in -person learning took place (August 2019 through mid -March 2020);
•   Difficulties with external linkages due to fractured nature of larger Mental Health healthcare systems, insurance barriers, etc.;
•   Limited staff time to promote prevention and early intervention services due to high volume of Tier 3 therapy services;
•   Transition of in-person services and workflows to remote tele -health services and workflows due to the pandemic;
•   Utilization of new technology to support remote tele -health services; •   Decline in accessibility and utilization of Mental Health services due to the pandemic; •   Impact of the pandemic on staff;
•   Vicarious trauma for staff due to the nature and content of the therapeutic work, high volume, and impact of the pandemic; and
•   Limited staff time for team meetings to discuss/plan/review administrative and programmatic considerations.

In FY21, approximately 101 students received services through this project. Demographics on youth served are outlined below:

DEMOGRAPHICS N=101
Age Groups
0-15 Years 27%
16-25 Years 73%
Race
Asian 16%
Black or African American 15%

9 89

White 32%
More than one Race 19%
Other 10%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 8%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Other 32%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 9%
Primary Language
English 87%
Spanish 13%
Sexual Orientation
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Disability
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Veteran Status
No 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Male 40%
Female 60%
Current Gender Identity
Male 37%
Female 52%
Transgender 3%
Genderqueer 8%
Program Successes:
•   In spite of the numerous and multi -faceted challenges associated with COVID -19 and distance learning, the Health Center was still able to provide mental health counseling services to over 100 students and was able to provide longer -term support to more students due to the lower than typical number of unduplicated clients. The Health Center was able to host a small, diverse, and talented graduate -level MFT trainee cohort.
•   Adapted care provision to utilize these new platforms and was a ble to flexibly provide services while also mitigating potential safety risks associated with COVID -19. •   During the course of the school year, the Health Center’s MH team was able to develop and implement use of a JotForm application in order to digitize re ferral processes, make referrals accessible online, and

0 90

thereby improve overall accessibility. Transition to this HIPAA -compliant online referral process has been maintained into the FY22 school year and is now being more broadly used by all Health Center programs.
•   The online referral process was implemented in January 2021 and promoted across student/parent bulletins, emails to the school community from BHS and BTA principals, and presentations to teacher leads and other school staff. Upon successfully im plementing this new method for referrals, the Health Center phased out use of its phone -based Mental Health Warm Line, which was initially utilized in Spring 2020 shortly after the COVID -19 pandemic began. The Warm Line was phased out in order to simplify the referral pathway for accessing mental health services from the Health Center. •   Throughout the COVID -19 pandemic and for the duration of the FY21 school year, the Health Center’s MH team maintained a positive and collaborative relationship with school ad ministration, the BHS and BTA COST teams, and the school -based Intervention and IEP counselors. Collaboration and coordination with school -based stakeholders enabled program staff to effectively triage and refer students/families to EPSDT/ERMHS services in addition to short-term Health Center services.

Program Challenges:
•   During the FY21 school year, BUSD provided all educational instruction via remote “distance learning” using platforms like Zoom and Google Meet due to COVID -19-related safety concerns. Stu dents were not present on campus from the start of the school year in August 2020 through spring break in April 2021. From mid-April through early June of 2021, a small percentage of the student body was on campus two hours per day, 2 -3 days per week. Heal th Center counseling rooms were not usable for in - person services due to spatial limitations, inadequate social distancing, and inadequate ventilation. An alternative physical space on the BHS campus was identified for crisis -only use during this timeframe . •   For the duration of the FY21 school year, one Health Center clinician was on parental leave. The Health Center’s graduate -level trainee cohort was also downsized by 50%, from four to two, due to COVID -19- related constraints.
•   Up until COVID-19, the Health Center relied upon a paper -based referral process where referrals needed to be submitted in person to staff. Accessing services remotely was not feasible until workflow adjustments were made, which required technological advancements and collaboration wit h the City’s IT department. The planning and implementation  of a digital, online, HIPAA -compliant referral portal took approximately five months.

ACCESS & LINKAGE TO TREATMENT AND EARLY INTERVENTION

COMBINED PROGRAM
Access and Linkage to Treatment Progra m – Connects children who are seriously emotionally disturbed, and adults and seniors with severe mental illness as early in the onset of these conditions as practicable, to medically necessary care and treatment, including but not limited to care provided by county mental health programs.

Early Intervention Program – Provides treatment and other services and interventions, including relapse prevention, to address and promote recovery and related functional outcomes for a mental illness early in its emergence, including the applicable negative outcomes that may result from untreated mental illness.

1 91

Through the FY22 Annual Update the City of Berkeley provided a one -time amount of CSS and PEI funding to support a pilot program. Per PEI program type definition s, this program would be considered as an Access to Treatment and Early Intervention combined program. The program is as follow:

Specialized Care Unit
On July 14, 2020 City Council passed Resolution No, 69,501 -N.S.; a package of items providing directio n for the development of a new paradigm of public safety in Berkeley. One of the items adopted by City Council directed the City Manager to analyze and develop a pilot program to re -assign non-criminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) . The SCU will consist of trained crisis -response field workers who will respond to behavioral health occurrences that do not pose an imminent threat to safety without the involvement of law enforcement. The SCU will be implemented as a pilot model and l essons- learned will inform the long -term implementation. Through the approved FY22 Annual Update, the Division proposed to allocate a small portion of CSS and PEI funds to be leveraged with other City funds for this pilot program. This allocation was a on e-time MHSA funding amount, while the City determines how to best fund this initiative.

PEI Goals: The goal of this program is to connect individuals who have severe mental illnesses as early in the onset of these conditions as practicable, to medically necessary care and treatment, including but not limited to, care provided by county mental health programs.

PEI Priority:
•   Early identification programming of mental health symptoms and disorders, including but not limited to, anxiety, depression, and ps ychosis.

In FY22, Resource Development Associates (RDA), chosen through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process to evaluate the current crisis system in Berkeley, received an expanded scope of work to provide recommendations on the implementation of the SCU. To oversee and advise RDA in their work, the City formed an SCU Steering Committee consisting of Health, Housing and Community Services Department and Fire Department staff, and community representatives from the Mental Health Commission and the Berkeley Community Safety Commission. The Steering Committee met from January 2021 through January 2022 and advised on RDA’s completion of three critical reports. The first two reports summarized crisis response programs in the United States and internat ionally as well as gathered perspectives from community and City stakeholders regarding the crisis response system. This included gathering input from City of Berkeley and Alameda County agencies, local community -based organizations (CBOs), local community leaders, and utilizers of Berkeley’s crisis response services. These reports laid the foundation for the twenty-five recommendations that were the subject of the third and final report to inform the SCU model. Each recommendation put forth in the final re port is deeply rooted in the stakeholder feedback included in the two previous reports.

The work of the SCU Steering Committee has now transitioned from planning to implementation. It is envisioned that the SCU will begin operations in late FY22 or early FY23 through a community partner that will be chosen through a competitive Request for Proposal process.

2 92

STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION REDUCTION

PROGRAM

3 93

Stigma and Discrimination P rogram - Direct activities to reduce negative feelings, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, stereotypes and/or discrimination related to being diagnosed with a mental illness, having a mental illness, or to seeking mental health services and to increase acceptance, dignity, inclusion, and equity for individuals with mental i llness, and members of their families.

The City of Berkeley has one Stigma and Discrimination program:

Social Inclusion Program
The Social Inclusion program was created to combat stigma, attitudes and discrimination around individuals with mental health issues. Through this program, a “Telling Your Story” group provides mental health consumers with opportunities to be trained, compensated and empowered to share their stories of healing in a supportive peer environment. When they feel ready, consumers can elect to be community presenters, sharing their inspirational stories at pre -arranged local public venues to dispel myths and educate others.

This program serves approximately 10 -20 individuals a year.

PEI Goals: To reduce negative feelings, attitudes, be liefs, perceptions, stereotypes and/or discrimination related to being diagnosed with a mental illness, having a mental illness, or to seeking mental health services and to increase acceptance, dignity, inclusion, and equity for individuals with mental ill ness, and members of their families. To create changes in attitude, knowledge and/or behaviors related to seeking mental health services or related to mental illness.

PEI Priority: Culturally competent and linguistically appropriate prevention and interv ention.

In FY19, the “Telling Your Story” group met 24 times with 20 unduplicated persons attending for a total of 144 visits. Groups averaged 6 attendees. Due to a vacancy in the Consumer Liaison position until February 2019, demographic data for this program during FY19 is not available.

4 94

In FY20, the “Telling Your Story” group met 19 times with 22 unduplicated persons attending for a total of 119 visits. There were 4 virtual zoom groups included in the total meetings. On average there were 6.2 attendees. Program participants spent time discussing and practicing what makes a good story based on the topics given by the instructors. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 22*
Age Groups
26-59 (Adult) 18%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 36%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 46%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 9%
Asian 14%
Black or African American 14%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 9%
White 32%
Other 9%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 13%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Mexican 4%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 96%
Primary Language Used
English 41%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 59%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 4%
Heterosexual or Straight 27%
Bisexual 4%
Queer 4%
Questioning 9%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 52%

5 95

Disability
Difficulty Seeing 9%
Communication (other) 9%
Mental Domain not includi ng a mental illness 9%
Physical Mobility domain 18%
Chronic Health Condition 9%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 46% Veteran Status
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Gender: Assigned Sex at B irth
Female 41%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 59%
Current Gender Identity
Female 41%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 59%
*Demographics were based on a survey that was mailed back and returned. Not all participants responded to the survey.

Staff changed the formation of the group to better prepare the participants before coming to the meeting.

Topics were mailed out or people were called to help them prepare for the group. The staff also created more guidelines to help participants tell their story within a given timeframe, focusing on the to pic and give effective feedback to their peers. This format will help prepare the story tellers when there are opportunities for panels to break stigma about Mental Health.

Staff then assessed participant’s involvemen t within the group by sending out surveys to capture how they feel about the group. The “Telling Your Story” group brainstormed and discussed criteria on what makes a good story. The list of criteria that was generated was re -visited at many meetings and each criteria were discussed by the group. The group then practiced giving feedback to each person based on the criteria. A survey that included the criteria, with emphasis on participants understanding and awareness of turning points in their stories was then developed. The survey was then administered towards the end of the fiscal year and the results were tallied. The results indicated that the highest rated question pertained to participants’ confidence in telling a story that would change negativ e perceptions of mental health challenges. The results also guided the group to work on effectively using pauses and timing in telling a story, catchy first lines, and descriptive use of language to describe recovery to others.

In FY21, the “Telling Your Story” group held 25 meetings with 21 unduplicated persons attending for a total of 168 visits. This group met through the virtual platform “Z oom”. On average there were 6.72% attendees. Program participants spent time discussing and practicing what make s a good story based on the topics given by the instructors. Demographics on individuals served were as follows:

6 96

DEMOGRAPHICS N= 21
Age Groups
26-59 (Adult) 52%
Ages 60+ (Older Adult) 48%
Race
Asian 5%
Black or African American 9%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 5%
White 71%
Other 5%
More than one Race 5%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 14%
Asian Indian/South Asian 5%
European 14%
Filipino 9%
Japanese 5%
Middle Eastern 5%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 48%
Primary Language Used
English 100%
Sexual Orientation
Gay or Lesbian 5%
Heterosexual or Straight 52%
Bisexual 9%
Another Sexual Orientation 5%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 29%
Disability
Difficulty Hearing 14%
Mental Domain not including a mental illness 14%
Physical Mobility domain 14%
Chronic Health Condition 14%

7 97

Other (Specify): PTSD 10%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 34%
Veteran Status
No 48%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 52%
Gender: Assigned Sex at Birth
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 100%
Current Gender Identity
Male 14%
Female 67%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 19%
Program Successes :

The Telling Your Story group has grown to having mor e consistent attendees and participants being prepared to share based on the topics provided. Some participants enjoy ed having the group virtually in the comfort of their home, they felt safer and the hassle of commuting was eliminated. Participants felt more prepared during their shares and they enjoyed the support they receive d from their peers.

Program Challenges :

The Telling Your Story group challenges have been a lack of in -person connection and some individuals not having Zoom were unable to see others on the screen.

8 98

OUTREACH FOR INCREASING RECOGNITION OF EARLY

SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS

9 99

Outreach for Recognizing the Early Signs of Mental Illness Program - A process of engaging, encouraging, educating, and/or training, and learning from potential responders about ways to recognize and respond effectively to early signs of potentially severe and disabling mental illness.

Per PEI State Regulations in addition to having the required “Outreach for Increasing Recognition of Early Signs of Mental Illness Program”, menta l health jurisdictions may also offer required Outreach for Increasing Recognition of Early Signs of Mental Illness as: a strategy within a Prevention program, a strategy within an Early Intervention program, a strategy within another program funded by PEI funds, or a combination thereof. Additionally, an Outreach for Increasing Recognition of Early Signs of Mental Illness program, may be provided through other MHSA components as long as it meets all of the program requirements.

Mental Health First Aid
City of Berkeley Mental Health staff have previously implemented a Mental Health First Aid Training to the community through non -MHSA funds. Mental Health First Aid is a groundbreaking public education program that helps the public identify, understand, and r espond to signs of mental health issues and substance use disorders. Mental Health First Aid presents an overview of mental health issues and substance use disorders and introduces participants to risk factors and warning signs of mental health problems, builds understanding of their impact, and provides an overview of common treatments. Through this training a five step action plan is taught that encompasses the skills, resources and knowledge to help an individual in crisis connect with appropriate professional, peer, social, and self -help care. Due to the pandemic and vacancies in staff, Mental Health First Aid trainings have not been provided in the past several years .

00 100

SUICIDE PREVENTION
(OPTIONAL PEI PROGRAM)

0 101

Suicide Prevention Program (Optional) - Activities to prevent suicide as a consequence of mental illness.

The City of Berkeley has one PEI funded Suicide Prevention program:

California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) PEI Statewide Projects Per PEI State Regulations Mental Health j urisdictions have an option on whether to utilize MHSA PEI funds on Suicide Prevention programs. While the City of Berkeley has not previously chosen to utilize PEI funds to implement a local Suicide Prevention program, in FY18 BMH began contributing funding to the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) PEI Statewide Projects in order to obtain State resources locally on Suicide Prevention, Student Mental Health, and Stigma and Discrimination.

In FY19, through the CalMHSA Statewide Projects initiative, resources on Suicide Prevention, Student Mental Health and Stigma and Discrimination reached an excess amount of 1,546 individuals.

Additionally, an exces s of 1,315 pamphlets and resources on Suicide Prevention, Student Mental Health and Stigma and Discrimination were distributed in local schools and the community. BMH also participated in the CalMHSA “Each Mind Matters” campaign and distributed materials and giveaways at the local “May is Mental Health Month” event.

In FY20, resources from this initiative reached an excess amount of 1,680 individuals. Additionally, an excess of 1,225 pamphlets and resources on Suicide Prevention, Student Mental Health and Stigma and Discrimination were distributed in local schools and the community.

In FY21, through this initiative resources on Suicide Prevention, Student Mental Health and Stigma and Discrimination reached approximately 1,620 individuals. Additionally, re sources were distributed via email to local schools, community agencies and community members.

APPENDIX
B

Innovation

Fiscal
Year
2020/2021

Annual
Evaluation
Report

1C

City of Berkeley
Mental Health Services Act

Innovation
Fiscal Year 2020/2021
Annual Evaluation Report

1 INTRODUCTION
Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Innovation (INN) funds are to be are utilized for short-term projects that contribute to new learning in the mental health field. This MHSA component provides the opportunity to pilot test and evaluate new strategies that can inform future practices in communities/or mental health settings. INN projects can target any population and any aspect of the mental health system as long as the strategies or approaches that are being implemented address at least one of the following areas:
•   Increase access to mental health services;
•   Increase access to mental health services for underserved groups; •   Increase the quality of mental health services, including better outcomes; •   Promote interagency collaboration.

INN projects should also have one of the following primary practices: introduce new mental health practices or approaches that have never been done before; or make changes to existing mental health practices/approaches, including adapting them to a new setting or community; or introduce a new promising community-driven practice/approach that has been successful in non- mental health contexts or settings.

Per MHSA State requirements, Mental Health jurisdictions are to submit an INN Evaluation Report to the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) on an annual basis. INN Regulations released in 2018 also require mental health jurisdictions to submit an Annual Evaluation Report to the State each fiscal year. The Evaluation Report should be included with the MHSA Annual Update or Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan and undergo a 30 Day Public Review period and approval from the local governing board. Per state regulations in 2022, the MHSA INN Fiscal Year 2020/2021 (FY21) Annual Evaluation Report that covers data from FY21 is due.

This INN FY21 Annual Evaluation Report provides descriptions of currently funded MHSA INN services, and reports on FY21 program and demographic data.

2 BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2015, updated INN regulations designed by the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) became effective. The new INN Regulations, included program and demographic data requirements that are to be reported to the MHSOAC through INN Annual Evaluation Reports. Per the new requirements, Mental Health Jurisdictions should report on the following INN Program and Demographic elements.

•   Name of the Innovative Project.

•   Whether changes were made to the Innovative Project during the reporting period and descriptions and reasons for the changes.

•   Available evaluation data, including outcomes of the Innovative Project and information about which elements of the project are contributing to outcomes.

•   Program information collected during the reporting period, including for applicable Innovative Projects that serve individuals, number of participants served.

•   All Demographic Data as applicable per project. (as outlined below)

INN Demographic Reporting Requirements

For the information reported under the various program categories, each program will need to report disaggregate numbers served, number of potential responders engaged, and number of referrals for treatment and other se rvices by:

(A) The following Age groups:
•   0-15 (children/youth)
•   16-25 (transition age youth)
•   26-59 (adult)
•   ages 60+ (older adults)
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the question

(B) Race by the following categories:
•   American Indian or Alaska Native
•   Asian
•   Black or African American
•   Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
•   White
•   Other
•   More than one race
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the question

3 (C) Ethnicity by the following categories:
(i) Hispanic or Latino as follows
•   Caribbean
•   Central American
•   Mexican/Mexican -American/Chicano
•   Puerto Rican
•   South American
•   Other
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the question

(ii) Non-Hispanic or Non -Latino as follows
•   African
•   Asian Indian/South Asian
•   Cambodian
•   Chinese
•   Eastern European
•   European
•   Filipino
•   Japanese
•   Korean
•   Middle Eastern
•   Vietnamese
•   Other
•   Number of respondents who declined to
answer the question
•   More than one ethnicity
•   Number of respondents who declined to
answer the question

(D) Primary language used listed by
threshold languages for the indivi dual county
•   English
•   Spanish
•   Number of respondents who declined to
answer the question

(D) Primary language used listed by
threshold languages for the individual county
•   English
•   Spanish
•   Number of respondents who declined to
answer the question

4 (E) Sexual orientation
•   Gay or Lesbian
•   Heterosexual or Straight
•   Bisexual
•   Questioning or unsure of sexual orientation
•   Queer
•   Another sexual orientation
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the quest ion

(F) Disability, defined as a physical or mental impairment or medical condition lasting at least six months that substantially limits a major life activity, which is not the result of a severe mental illness •   If Yes, report the number that apply in e ach domain of disability(ies) o   Communication domain separately by each of the following:
§   difficulty seeing,
§   difficulty hearing, or having speech understood)
§   other, please specify
o   Mental domain not including a mental illness (including but not limited to a learning disability, developmental disability, dementia)
o   Physical/mobility domain
o   Chronic health condition (including but not limited to chronic pain) o   Other (specify)
•   No
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the question

(G) Veteran Status,
•   Yes
•   No
•   Number of respondents who declined to answer the question

(H) Gender
(i) Assigned sex at birth:
(a) Male
(b) Female
(c) Number of respondents who declined to answer the question (ii) Current gender identity:
(a) Male
(b) Female
(c) Transgender
(d) Genderqueer
(e) Questioning or unsure of gender identity
(f) Another gender identity
(g) Number of respondents who declined to answer the question.

5 Effective July 2018 amended INN regulations specified the following:
•   For projects/programs serving children or youth younger than 18 years of age, the demographic information collected and reported should only be done so to the extent permissible by privacy laws;
•   For projects/programs serving minors younger than 12 years of age, demographic information shall be collected and reported, except for sexual orientation, current gender identity, and veteran status;
•   Information that cannot be obtained directly from the minor many be obtained from the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or other authorized source.

CITY OF BERKELEY INN PROGRAMS
A description of the currently funded INN programs and FY21 data are outlined below:

Early Childhood Trauma Resiliency (ECTR) - Trauma Informed Care Project In May 2016, the City of Berkeley received approval from the MHSOAC to implement a Trauma Informed Care (TIC) for Educators project (which is posted on the MHSA Plans and Updates webpage) into several BUSD schools to assess whether educators who are trained to become aware of their own trauma and trauma triggers (and how to address them), are better equipped to recognize and make appropriate decisions on how to help students who are exhibiting trauma symptoms, and assist them in accessing the mental health services and supports they may need.

The project was implemented through the 20/20 Vision Program which at the time was operated out of the City of Berkeley, City Manager’s Office. After a year of the TIC Project being executed, there were two vacancies in the 20/20 Vision Program which impacted the ability to continue the implementation of the TIC Project. The project was only able to be implemented for one year in FY17 and during that timeframe an evaluation was conducted by Hatchuel Tabernik & Associates (HTA) on the project outcomes. The HTA Training Informed Systems Training Program 2016-17 Pilot Year Evaluation Report is located on the City of Berkeley MHSA Plans and Updates webpage.

In FY18, due to staffing vacancies the TIC project was not able to be implemented. When staffing vacancies were filled in mid FY18, meetings wer e held with several BUSD principals who indicated that although their schools received a lot of positive benefits out of the TIC project, additional training requirements within the school system had been added for teachers and administrators that needed to be fulfilled over the next couple of years. As a result, the TIC Project would not be able to be prioritized within the school system at that time. In light of the changes in the school system, staff conducted outreach and found that area YMCA Head Star t Centers were interested in executing the same TIC Project for their early childhood educators and staff, to impact the children and families who are served at the centers. As such, proposed changes to the population and funding amount of the original TIC Plan were vetted through community program

6 planning, and an update to the TIC Plan underwent a 30 Day Public Review and Public Hearing process. The City of Berkeley Trauma Informed Care Plan Update (which is posted on the MHSA Plans and Updates webpage) was approved through City Council in October 2018 and by the MHSOAC in December 2018. This modified project implemented TIC Training for Educators and interested parents in four local Head Start sites.

The TIC modified project, “Early Childhood Trauma and Resiliency” (ECTR) was implemented from January 2019 through June 2021 at four YMCA Head Start sites located in Berkeley:

Ocean View. South YMCA, Vera Casey, and West YMCA. The project provided training and supports to enable Head Start staff to recognize trauma and its effects on themselves and the children and families they serve, and to integrate trauma and resiliency informed approaches into their work. The project provided training, coaching and peer support to staff and parents who have children enrolled in Head Start and advanced Berkeley’s 2020 Vision priority, that all Berkeley children enter kindergarten ready to learn.

The learning objectives of this project were as follows:
•   To create a change in the way Head Start educators and staff view and handle challenging student and parent behaviors (which often mask trauma); •   To create an increase in access to mental health services and supports for ch ildren/families in need;
•   To promote better mental health outcomes by increasing child/family referrals to “appropriate’ mental health services.

In FY21, 178 children received services through this program. Below are demographics of individuals impacted in FY21 by this program. The final evaluation conducted during the reporting timeframe by HTA, is attached to this report.

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS N=178
Age Groups
0-15 (Children) 100%
Race
Asian 9%
Black or African American 29%
White 9%
Other 28%
More than one Race 17%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 8%

7 Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx
Central American 2%
Mexican/Mexican -American/Chicano 32%
Puerto Rican 1%
South American 2%
Other 2%
More than one ethnicity 7% Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non -Latino/Latina/Latinx
African 6%
Cambodian <1%
Chinese 3%
Middle Eastern <1% Vietnamese 1%
Other 9%
More than one Ethnicity 2%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) 20%
Primary Language
English 67%
Spanish 23%
Urdu <1%
Arabic 2%
French 1%
Berber 1%
Mongolian <1%
Amharic <1%
Tigrina 1%
Chinese/Mandarin 1%
Nepalese <1%
Declined to Answer (or Unknown) <1%

8 Disability
Communication: other, speech/language
impairment
39%
Physical domain 7%
Other 7%
No Disability 47%
Gender
Female 41%
Male 59%

Help@Hand - Technology Suite Project
In September 2018, following a four-month community planning process and approval from City Council, the City of Berkeley Technology Suite Project (which has since been renamed “Help@Hand) was approved by the MHSOAC. This project allocates a total of $462,916 to participate in a Statewide Collaborative with other California counties to pilot a Mental Health Technology Project that makes various technology -based mental health services and supports applications (Apps) locally available in Berkeley. The Help@Hand project seeks to learn whether the use of the Apps will increase access to mental health services and supports; and whether it will increase the quality of mental health services, including leading to better outcomes.

Since plan approval and through FY21, the City of Berkeley worked both internally and with the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA), the fiscal intermediary for this project, to prepare for citywide implementation. Due to a need for additional community mental health supports as a result of the pandemic, the priority population for accessing Apps was changed from the original primary focus on TAY and Older Adults, to include anyone who lives, works and goes to school in Berkeley.

Per a competitive recruitment process, the Division contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA), who conducted Project Coordination work through early FY22 on this project.

Additionally, on behalf of the City , and with locally designated Help@Hand project funds, CalMHSA executed a contract with Uptown Studios, a local Marketing company in early FY22 to conduct a marketing and social media campaign for this project. In November 2021, as a result of this project, free access to the HeadSpace and MyStrength Apps became locally available for a limited timeframe to anyone who lives, works or goes to school in Berkeley.

The City is currently participating in a State Eva luation with other counties in this project. The evaluation is being conducted by the University of California at Irvine (UCI). Additionally,

9 following a competitive recruitment process, the City of Berkeley entered into a contract with Hatchuel, Tabernik & Associates to conduct a local evaluation of this project. Outcomes of this project will be outlined in future reports.

1 Early Childhood Trauma and
Resiliency Project (ECTR)
City of Berkeley, Berkeley’s 2020 Vision
Final 3-Year Evaluation Report, August 2021

Prepared by
Ruthie Chang, EdM
Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates

2 Table of Contents
Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Key Partners ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Theory of Change .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Implementation .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Implementation Activities to Date ............................................................................................................. 6 Pivots to Programming During COVID-19 ............................................................................................. 8 Findings ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Demographic Data ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Child (Participant) Demographics ........................................................................................................ 12 Staff Demographics ................................................................................................................................ 15 Staff Views and Perceptions ...................................................................................................................... 18 Staff Behaviors ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Staff Morale .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Mental Health Referrals .............................................................................................................................. 23 Number of Mental Health Referrals .................................................................................................... 23 Referrals to “Appropriate” Mental Health Services .......................................................................... 24 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Focus Group Notes .................................................................................................................................... 28 Full Narrative Transcript, ECTR Project Coordinator .......................................................................... 35 Open-Ended Responses from Staff Survey (May/June 2020) ............................................................. 36 How have the trauma trainings or Resiliency Circles changed how you work with families/children? ................................................................................................................................... 36 In what ways has your relationship with families changed since you attended the trauma trainings or resiliency circles, if at all? .................................................................................................. 37 Additional thoughts and comments ..................................................................................................... 38

3 Project Description
Berkeley’s 2020 Vision is a citywide partnership that strives to eliminate racial disparities in Berkeley’s public education system, with a primary focus on African American and Latinx children and their families. Berkeley’s 2020 Vision advances the following City of Berkeley’s strategic plan goal: to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

In December 2019, Berkeley’s 2020 Vision was awarded $336,825 in Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funding through June 30th, 2021, to implement the Early Childhood Trauma and Resiliency (ECTR) Project in partnership with the YMCA of the East Bay. The ECTR project advances Berkeley’s 2020 Vision priority that all Berkeley children enter kindergarten ready to learn.

The ECTR Project provides training, coaching, and peer support to staff and parents with children enrolled in YMCA’s four Head Start sites located in Berkeley: Ocean View, South YMCA, Vera Casey, and West YMCA. This project’s core strategy is to build the capacity of YMCA Head Start staff to recognize trauma and its effects on themselves, children, and families, and integrate a trauma- and resiliency-informed approach into their work with children and families. The ultimate goal of this project is to improve mental health care access and outcomes for children, ages 0 through 5 years old who are enrolled at each of the YMCA’s four sites.

Key Partners
Nina Goldman of Berkeley’s 2020 Vision is managing this project on behalf of the City of Berkeley.

Anita Smith, Psy.D., who oversees the work of Head Start’s mental health services, is the Project Coordinator of the ECTR Project on behalf of the YMCA of the East Bay. Dr. Smith works closely with Melanie Mueller, Executive Director, who is responsible for early childhood development programs at YMCA of the East Bay, replacing Pamm Shaw as of Winter/Spring 2020. Head Start has contracted with Julie Kurtz, MS, LMFT, to conduct trauma training, coaching, and guidance to the ECTR Project. Ms. Kurtz is a private consultant and author with extensive expertise in trauma, early childhood development, training, and curriculum development. She co-authored the book, Trauma-Informed Practices for Early Childhood Educators, published in 2019. Before opening her consulting practice, Ms. Kurtz served as Co-Director of Trauma-Informed Practices in Early Childhood Education at WestEd’s Center for Child & Family Studies. Berkeley’s 2020 Vision has also contracted with Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates (HTA) to lead the evaluation of the ECTR project.

Theory of Change
The underlying theory of change creates a chain of reasoning from resources to outcomes that is used to test assumptions and inform the evaluation. ECTR’s theory of change is as follows:

• Trauma has a significant impact on the mental health of Head Start students, parents/guardians, educators and staff.
• Introducing a trauma-informed approach and strategies to Head Start educators and staff will enable them to better recognize their own trauma and triggers. • This knowledge will help educators and staff approach students and parents/guardians from a trauma-informed perspective (including shifting from “What’s wrong with you?” to “What happened to you?”).

4 “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”

-Frederick Douglass

• Supported by agency-wide trainings, peer support learning circles, and in-class coaching, teachers and staff will develop more positive, empathic relationships with students and their parents/guardians, helping them to better identify trauma in the children/families they serve. • Equipped with trauma-informed tools and stronger relationships with students and parents, educators will make more successful and “appropriate” mental health referrals. • This project will build Head Start’s in-house capacity to lead trainings, facilitate peer support circles, and onboard new staff to ensure sustainability beyond the current funding term.

Methodology
The overall purpose of this evaluation is to determine the impact of the ECTR model implementation on the way that Head Start educators and staff view trauma, how they handle challenging behavior, and their capacity to provide “appropriate” mental health referrals. Through a mixed-methods, collaborative, and client-centered approach, HTA uses a utilization-focused approach for the ECTR evaluation, combining surveys, focus groups/interviews, and archival data to address the impact of the program on participants and mental health referrals. Utilization-based evaluation is an approach whereby the evaluation activities from beginning to end are focused on the intended use by the intended users.1 HTA also attempts to account for the developmental nature of the program as it is designed and continues to evolve while the evaluation is underway.

The following research questions (RQs) were developed to guide the evaluation activities:

Project Goal 1: To create a change in the way Head Start educators and staff view and handle challenging student and parent behaviors (which often mask trauma)

RQ1: What is the impact of the ECTR model on participants (Head Start staff and educators, resiliency champions, peer support learning circle participants)?

Specifically, do they view themselves, the parents, and children they work with differently? Do they view student behavior issues differently? When parents attend trainings, what is the impact on them?

Project Goal 2: To create an increase in access to mental health services and supports for children/families in need

RQ2: What is the impact on Head Start families’ and children’s access to mental health services?

1 Patton, M.Q. (2012). Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

5 Specifically, are Head Start educators and staff more comfortable talking about mental health with families, both before and after referrals are made? Do they see themselves as allies in helping families access mental health services? Do Head Start educators and staff feel better equipped to utilize the mental health referral process? Is there a change in the number of mental health referrals?

Project Goal 3: To promote better mental health outcomes by increasing child/family referrals to “appropriate” mental health services

RQ3: Is there an increase in the number of “appropriate” mental health referrals from Head Start educators and staff?

In order to answer the evaluation questions, HTA is collecting the following data from ECTR program staff and developing instruments (e.g., staff survey, focus group protocols) as needed.

Table 1. ECTR Data Sources
Data Source Description of Data Source
Training attendance
sheets
Collected by YMCA at each training, these attendance sheets indicate all YMCA staff who attended the training. Attendance sheets include training date, training location, names, job titles, and sites.

Annual participant
survey
Online survey completed by YMCA staff annually. The survey was developed by HTA in collaboration with ECTR program leaders adapting some questions from existing surveys from the City of Berkeley’s 2016-17 Trauma-Informed Systems pilot program and a trauma-informed practices self-assessment from defendingchildhoodoregon.org. Topics covered include how staff better understand how their own past trauma impacts their work, how staff view students and families who have experienced trauma that impacts their behavior, and how staff approach behavioral issues. The same survey will be completed each year to see change over time.

YMCA Child Plus YMCA database with demographics of children for MHSA reporting requirements.

YMCA supplemental
demographics survey
YMCA survey administered at the door to families to collect missing demographic data for MHSA that is missing from ChildPlus.

Program Information
Reports (PIR)
YMCA Mental Health Consultants complete this worksheet on a monthly basis for submission to the Program Manager. This worksheet reports mental health referrals to agencies outside of the YMCA Head Start program.

Mental health
referral follow-up
form
HTA helped YMCA develop this form. Mental Health Consultants complete this form to document “appropriateness” of referral, in other words, whether they contacted referral agencies before the referral, whether families utilized the referral, and whether it met their needs.

Focus group A focus group was conducted with staff from each site in the second year. Focus groups gather information about how educators and staff view themselves, children, and parents, how they handle challenging behaviors, and changes to their capacity to make referrals.

Staff Interviews Four staff and leadership interviews were conducted in the third and final year of the project to understand the long-term impacts of the trauma trainings.

Post-training surveys Surveys developed by trainers and administered post-training via paper surveys to measure understanding and satisfaction.

6 Implementation
Implementation Activities to Date
This report covers program activities and outcomes cumulatively over the past 30 months of program implementation from January 1st 2019 through June 30th, 2021.

Year 1

Head Start kicked off the ECTR project in February 15th, 2019 with its first all-staff (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) training, “Understanding Trauma Informed Practices for Early Childhood Programs: Creating Strength-Based Environments to Support Children’s Health and Healing” (also referred to as “Trauma Informed Care 101”). See Table 3 below for training dates and attendance counts.

The subsequent training was designed for Head Start’s leadership team to begin preparing management staff to effectively guide their teams/supervisees through organizational culture change. This session, “Kick-off and Leadership Reflective Practices,” was held on June 10th, 2019. It specifically focused on how to create a safe and strong supervisor-supervisee relationship through a reflective practice.

The Resiliency Champion component of this project was designed to help establish and maintain a trauma-informed care environment at the Head Start Centers by developing staff leadership and putting in place a mechanism to onboard new staff to trauma-informed practices quickly and effectively. In early summer 2019, Dr. Smith recruited and selected a group of 15 “Resiliency Champions” to serve as internal leaders and future trainers of the trauma-informed curriculum to new staff. Resiliency Champions include program managers, area managers, workforce development staff, health specialists, family advocates, a center director, and a lead teacher.

The Resiliency Champion trainings and Learning Circles launched on June 10th, 2019.

Champions attended ten three-hour training sessions through November 1st, 2019. Training sessions were co-facilitated by Julie Kurtz and Dr. Smith. Training handouts describe the purpose of the Resiliency Champions sessions as: “to reflect and go deeper in discussion about how to practically apply social-emotional and trauma sensitive strategies to the work we do with each other, families and children every day. To seek to understand human behavior so that we can grow in our awareness and help make our own lives, others and the planet a more humane place to live in. To take an inquiry stance where we are eager to learn and seek to understand. Growth comes from self- reflection and self-awareness.”

Resiliency Champion sessions covered topics including: Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma, Foundations of Trauma-Informed Practices for Early Childhood Education and Trauma Sensitive Early Childhood Programs. Participants discussed case studies, including those of an infant and mother in a homeless shelter, a toddler with a history of neglect and three foster care placements, a preschooler with an undocumented father who has been deported, and a child who witnessed a drive-by shooting while at school. The text for these sessions is a book co- authored by Julie Kurtz, Trauma Informed Practices for Early Childhood Educators: Relationship-

7 Based Approaches that Support Healing and Build Resilience in Young Children. The Resiliency Champions also learned and practiced delivering three new staff trainings developed by Ms. Kurtz for this project, each with its own PowerPoint slide deck. A later session covered: The Importance of Self-Care: Taking Care of Yourself in Order to Prevent Burnout, Compassion Fatigue and Secondary Traumatic Stress.

Year 2

Four all-staff trainings were held during this second year of the program. The first, a four-hour training, was held on August 22nd, 2019 and covered the topic, Self-Care: Getting a PhD in You, focused on provider self-care while doing trauma-informed work and was facilitated by Julie Kurtz.

Attendees had positive feedback in post-training evaluations, sharing that they learned techniques regarding internal dialogue and self-talk. One participant expressed that “when we care for ourselves in a great way, meeting all of our needs, we can better care for others.” The next all-staff training on October 14th discussed the topic of Trauma Informed Practices: Classroom Strategies and was also facilitated by Julie Kurtz. This 6-hour training was attended by 67 staff and covered strategies such as supporting relationship practices and environments that promote safety, predictability, empowerment, and control as well as direct skill-building of social-emotional skills.

After these trainings, staff provided feedback about them to ECTR leaders, as well as to HTA, in a focus group held on November 27th. Focus group participants expressed thoughts and opinions about the training and the trainer that program leaders felt would be addressed by bringing on additional trainers to provide a wider variety of perspectives, strategies, and cultural vantage points.

On January 27th, 2020, Valentina Torrez, a trainer through Optimal Brain Integration, along with Julie Kurtz, facilitated a follow-up to the Self-Care training for all staff entitled Self-Care Part 2.

Training evaluations reflect staff’s appreciation of having Ms. Torrez’s expertise to build upon Ms.

Kurtz’s knowledge base.

In February 2020, Dr. Smith, the Project Coordinator, began leading Resiliency/Learning Circles with staff at each site. In sessions with staff at the South Y and Vera Casey Head Start sites, Dr.

Smith facilitated two-hour discussions around Expectations and Self-Care.

As part of this project’s effort to ensure the long-term sustainability of the trauma-informed approach throughout the organization, Dr. Smith also conducted two 1.5-hour training sessions on Intro to Trauma-Informed Care for twelve new staff onboarded on January 8th and February 6th.

Staff included a center director, program assistants, family advocates, teachers and kitchen staff.

Because of the challenges of conducting trainings remotely, Dr. Smith led the onboarding processes by herself without participation from the Resiliency Champions. Moving into the next school next year, part of the introduction to trauma trainings will be delivered through webinars produced by “We were always gardening, but now we can be better gardeners because we can name the plants.”
-May 2020 Trauma Training Attendee

8 YMCA staff. Resiliency Champions will be an integral part of delivering the training materials with support and oversight by Dr. Smith.

Pivots to Programming During COVID-19
On March 16th, 2020, Alameda County issued stay-at-home orders in response to Covid-19, the novel coronavirus. Head Start had to close its doors without notice and shift its services to reach out to and support families and children in this new reality. Staff who work directly with children conducted outreach to families once or twice weekly, depending on the family’s needs and circumstances. Parents were most responsive through phone calls (audio only) and primarily communicated with staff this way. About half of our families engaged either over video (e.g., Zoom) or over email. As indicated in Table 2 (below), nearly three-quarters of Head Start teachers and outreach staff created and shared activities remotely with children and families, 40% referred families to resources, and 37% developed resources and media such as recording story time on YouTube. Nearly a third distributed diapers and emergency supplies to families, and one in five distributed gift cards to families for emergency needs. Other staff were involved in crisis management issues or managed Head Start hiring and administrative tasks as they transitioned online.

Table 2. Ways Staff Worked with Children and Families as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic %
Providing activities for children/families 73%
Diaper/supply distribution 31%
Referring families to resources 40%
Crisis management 12%
Learning kits for each family 14%
Gift card distribution for emergency support 20%
Developing resources and media 37%
Not working with children/families 6%
Other
• Call families once or twice a week to meet their needs and know about children learning and development at home
• Call parents once a week and check on children.
• More managerial tasks--putting much of the work we do online, hiring, supporting Family Advocates, etc. • Other management task
• referring to our mental health
• Take trainings
11%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, May/June 2020 (N=52)

In the midst of this upheaval, the ECTR program continued its work. Julie Kurtz and Lawanda Wesley (of Optimal Brain Integration) were scheduled to lead an in-person Family Engagement Trauma Training on May 18th, 2020. In response to the pandemic, the Head Start team transitioned this planned training into a two-part virtual training over three hours on May 18th and three hours on the 28th. In addition to discussing strategies to engage families from a trauma-based lens, the trainers adjusted the topics to meet the immediate needs of staff, including: anxiety as a result of Covid-19, coping strategies, wellness, and self-care. Staff also discussed what would make them feel safe when Head Start re-opened. Feedback from these trainings was extremely positive based on post-training evaluations. Attendees wanted even more training for staff “to better handle

9 families that are dealing with trauma as they [staff] may be dealing with trauma themselves” and others recommended that families take the training as well. Another attendee reportedly expressed how the training helped her to name the issues she sees with children, “We were always gardening but now we can be better gardeners because we can name the plants.”

The ECTR team also reconvened staff in online, monthly Resiliency/Learning Circles starting the week of April 9th, 2020. These forums provided a critical space for teachers and staff to come together, by site, and talk through their own apprehensions and fears amidst the pandemic, and those being experienced by the children and families they serve. The ECTR Project Coordinator, Dr. Smith, led the Resiliency Circles and invited all site staff, except for the Center Director (by design), to join on their lunch break. This was an opportunity to have time to reflect together on the current challenges, wellness during Covid-19, and also how to re-open sites safely.

According to Dr. Smith, the Circles were sometimes emotional, teachers were in distress, and many attendees were in tears but “feeling uplifted and challenged together.” It became clear to Dr. Smith that Covid-19 is a traumatic event and “if we teach the strategies about trauma, we have to be about it.” The manner in which she led the Resiliency Circles with teachers and staff was critical in reinforcing and modeling how staff need to work with children. She acknowledged all feelings, fears, and anxiety and allowed them to name it. She acknowledged that they were in a safe place and normalized their tears without judgment, just as they do with the children.

A Leadership Team Peer Support Learning Circle for managers on May 21st, 2020 , led by Kriss Sulka, LCSW, an Oakland-based early childhood mental health expert, allowed leaders to come together and learn, receive support, and troubleshoot issues associated with the impacts of the pandemic, implementing ECTR and adopting a trauma-centered organizational approach. Kriss Sulka also led a similar one-hour training on June 4th, 2020 for the Head Start Inclusion Team to discuss the impacts of the pandemic on their work specifically.

While these activities continued, YMCA was also making plans to re-open on July 6th, 2020. While also managing staff anxiety about re-opening, YMCA staff and leaders plan to conduct a reorientation with families to make their return as smooth and safe as possible and to ensure that everyone knows what to expect. An important element of this re-opening plan will involve building on the knowledge and expertise that Head Start staff has learned about trauma-informed care. The students, their families and many of the Head Start staff have experienced trauma as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak. The ECTR project has positioned Head Start to better support children, families and out own staff through this traumatic time.

Year 3

In the third and final year, the program leaders continued to listen to staff feedback that trainers should have relatable lived experience and that they would like new faces and perspectives. Several of this year’s all-staff trainings were led by DB Bedford, a trainer and speaker on the topics of emotional intelligence based on his own life experience in his youth in the criminal justice system.

Program leaders also expanded the audiences of the trainings to offer them to parents as well.

On August 13, 2020, all staff attended the training on Emotional Intelligence. Through personal stories from his early life in Oakland, Bedford described how he lost several of his childhood friends

10 to murder over emotionally charged incidents and struggled with his own emotional outbursts and violent behavior. His behavior consequently landed him in jail facing serious time for losing his temper and attempting to take another man's life. Staff were able to apply prior learning from trauma-informed training as well as see an undesirable path for some of the children in their classrooms if their emotions and trauma were not addressed properly.

The last all-staff training was held on June 4, 2021 during Wellness Day on the topic of Belief Theory. The trainer, Steve Bacon, led a training on the topic of one’s self-image related to trauma and traumatic experiences. He discussed strategies for shifting one’s mindset about trauma.

“We are the ones that hold power and we can learn a lot from children by listening and watching them, their verbal and physical reactions and using that to support them.” – Health and Family Service Specialist, 2021

Bedford returned on October 23, 2020 to conduct the same Emotional Intelligence training with parents and again on January 25, 2021 to conduct an Emotional Detox training with all staff. The trainings were well-received by staff who appreciated his relatable style and approach.

In the fall and into the following summer, Dr. Anita Smith continued to lead Resiliency Circles at each of the four sites on the topics of Self Care Strategies and Wellness during Covid-19. These circles allowed staff a space to reflect on and apply the self-care strategies learned in the prior year and to share their personal stresses and challenges as well as those related to the children and families they work with. Dr. Smith also led a training for Resiliency Champions to continue the “train the trainer” model for Champions to hold these spaces for staff at each site.

“My emotional well-being was affected [by Covid-19]. Meditation was the biggest thing that helped me. Tuning into my body and understanding what was happening. I used to have lots of panic attacks –tingling, breathing signs. I started meditation. I would think about families and kids… I used these concepts at work and at home.” -– Health and Family Service Specialist, 2021

In addition to the Emotional Intelligence training for parents, other trainings for parents included Resiliency and Trauma on September 25, 2020 and Surviving Covid on December 16, 2020. This was a critical component of the program’s trauma-informed design to ensure everyone involved at the YMCA sites, from teachers, staff, leadership to parents, were able to use the same language and call upon the same concepts learned in trainings around trauma.

11 Table 3. Training Sessions and Attendance
Training Name Date Length # Attendees
Year One Trainings
Understanding Trauma Informed Practices for Early Childhood Programs (All Staff)
Feb 15, 2019 8 hours 62
Kick-off and Leadership Reflective Practices June 10, 2019 3 hours 17 Resiliency Champion Meeting 1 June 10, 2019 3 hours 15
Resiliency Champion Meeting 2 June 24, 2019 3 hours 15
Year Two Trainings
Resiliency Champion Meeting 3 July 1, 2019 3 hours 13
Resiliency Champion Meeting 4 July 15, 2019 3 hours 13
Resiliency Champion Meeting 5 Aug 19, 2019 3 hours 11
Trauma-Informed Practices: Self-Care for Early Childhood Providers (All Staff) Aug 22, 2019 3 hours 86 Resiliency Champion Meeting 6 Sept 9, 2019 3 hours 11
Resiliency Champion Meeting 7 Sept 23, 2019 3 hours 10
Resiliency Champion Meeting 8 Oct 7, 2019 3 hours 10
Resiliency Champion Meeting 9 Oct 21, 2019 3 hours 8
Trauma-Informed Practices: Classroom Strategies (All Staff) Oct 14, 2019 6 hours 67 Resiliency Champion Meeting 10 Nov 1, 2019 3 hours 7
Self-Care Part 2 (All Staff) Jan 27, 2020 3 hours 85
Resiliency Circles (site-based)
South Y Feb 19, 2020 2 hours 12
Vera Casey Mar 10, 2020 2 hours 8
Resiliency Circles-virtual (site-based)
South Y (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Apr 9, 2020 1 hour 15 West Y (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Apr 15, 2020 1 hour 15 Vera Casey (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Apr 23, 2020 1 hour 15 Oceanview (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Apr 29, 2020 1 hour 15 South Y (Prioritizing to Minimize Stress & New Normal) May 13, 2020 1 hour 15 Vera Casey (Prioritizing to Minimize Stress & New Normal) May 14, 2020 1 hour 15 West Y (Prioritizing to Minimize Stress & New Normal) Jun 12, 2020 1 hour 15 Oceanview (Prioritizing to Minimize Stress & New Normal) Jun 19, 2020 1 hour 15 Family Engagement Part 1 -virtual (All Staff) May 18, 2020 3 hours 65 Leadership Team Peer Support Learning Circle (leadership) May 21, 2020 1 hour 9 Family Engagement Part 2 -virtual (All Staff) May 28, 2020 3 hours 65 Peer Support Learning Circle (Inclusion Team) Jun 4, 2020 1 hour 4 Year Three Trainings
Emotional Intelligence (All Staff) Aug 13, 2020 90 min 85 Resiliency Circles (site based)
South Y Jul 11, 2020 1 hour 15
West Y Sept 11, 2020 1 hour 15
West Y (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Oct 28, 2020 2 hours 13 Oceanview (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Nov 18, 2020 2 hours 10 Vera Casey (Self-Care and Wellness During Covid-19) Dec 10, 2020 1 hour 5 West Y Jun 24, 2021 1 hour 15
South Y Jun 25, 2021 1 hour 15
Oceanview Jun 28, 2021 1 hour 10
Vera Casey Jun 29, 2021 1 hour 5
Resiliency and Trauma (Parents) Sept 25, 2020 1 hour 35 Resiliency Champions Training Nov 20, 2020 1 hour 3
Emotional Intelligence (Parents) Oct 23, 2020 90 min 35 Surviving Covid (Parents) Dec 16, 2020 90 min 6
Emotional Detox (All Staff) Jan 25, 2021 1 hour 85
Wellness Day: Belief Theory Jun 4, 2021 1 hour 85
Source: ECTR program documents

12 Findings
Demographic Data
While the ECTR program activities are aimed at teachers and staff, the ultimate long-term goal of the program is to improve the lives of the children they serve. We, therefore, consider children the primary participants of the program and provide their demographics below. Demographic data was collected from Head Start’s ChildPlus system as well as a supplemental parent/guardian survey for demographics not collected in ChildPlus (e.g., MHSA ethnicity categories). The program’s Theory of Change posits that more immediate changes will first occur in teachers and staff, as described in Figure 1 later in the report.

Child (Participant) Demographics
The ECTR program served 197 children at the four program sites in 2018-19, 197 in 2019-20, and 178 in 2020-21 (see Table 4). The majority of children’s primary language is English (67%), and 23% primarily speak Spanish. There are more male (59%) than female (41%) children. All children are in the 0-5 age group. The most common disability among the children is a speech/language impairment (39%).

13 Table 4. ECTR Child Demographics2
n Year 1
(N=197)
%
n Year 2
(N=197)
%
n Year 3
(N=178)
%
Site
Oceanview
South YMCA
Vera Casey
West YMCA
Total

49 69
16 63
197

25%
35%
8%
32%
100%

48 63
19 67
197

24%
32%
10%
34%
100%

42 56
18 62
178

24%
31%
10%
35%
100%
Gender (assigned at birth)
Female
Male
Total

97 100
197

49%
51%
100%

93 104
197

47%
53%
100%

73 105
178

41%
59%
100%
Age
0-5

197

100%

197

100%

178

100%
Primary Language
English
Spanish
Urdu
Arabic
French
American Sign Language
Berber
Mongolian
Punjabi
Tigrina
Amharic
Chinese/Mandarin
Laotian
Nepalese
Russian
Korean
Missing
Total

130
41 5
4 4
2 2
2 2
2 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
197

66%
21%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0 0%
100%

119
43 2
4 2
0 2
0 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 20
197

60%
22%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
0%
0 10%
100%

120
41 1
4 2
0 2
1 0
2 1
2 0
1 0
0 1
178

67%
23%
<1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
<1%
0%
1%
<1%
1%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
<1%
100%

Disability
Communication: difficulty seeing
Communication: difficulty hearing
Communication: other, speech/language
impairment
Mental domain
Physical/mobility domain
Chronic health condition
Other
[No Disability]
Total

0 0

39 4
3 11
11 129
197

0%
0%

20%
2%
2%
6%
6%
65%
100%

0 0

20 2
0 1
3 171
197

0%
0%

10%
1%
0%
<1%
2%
87%
100%

0 0

70 0
12 0
13 83
178

0%
0%

39%
0%
7%
0%
7%
47%
100%
Source: YMCA ChildPlus

2 The MHSA categories of sexual orientation, veteran status, and current gender identity are excluded as instructed.

14 A supplemental survey asking only the following race and ethnicity questions was administered to families in May 2021. Black/African American children are the largest ethnic/racial group served (29%) followed by children reporting “Other” (28%) (See Table 5).

Table 5. ECTR Child Race and Ethnicity Demographics3
Year 1
(N=154)
Year 2
(N=158)
Year 3
(N=109)
n % n % n %
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Other
More than one race
Declined to answer/Unspecified
Total

3 8
64 0
17 42
18 2
154

2%
5%
42%
0%
11%
27%
12%
1%
100%

4 6
75 0
36 15
20 2
158

3%
4%
47%
0%
23%
9%
13%
1%
100%

0 10
32 0
10 30
18 9
109

0%
9%
29%
0%
9%
28%
17%
8%
100%
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Caribbean
Central American
Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano
Puerto Rican
South American
Other
More than one ethnicity
Declined to specify
Total Hispanic or Latino

0 2
37 0
1 1
5 0
46 <1%
1%
30%
<1%
<1%
<1%
4%
3%
30%

1 1
42 1
2 0
15 1
63 <1%
<1%
27%
<1%
3%
0%
9%
<1%
40%

0 2
35 1
2 2
8 0
50 0%
2%
32%
1%
2%
2%
7%
0%
49%
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino
African
Asian Indian/ South Asian
Cambodian
Chinese
Eastern European
European
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Middle Eastern
Vietnamese
Other
More than one ethnicity
Declined to specify
Total Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino

53 2
1 1
0 1
0 0
3 6
0 4
4 5
80 34%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
4%
0%
3%
3%
3%
52%

59 3
2 2
1 2
0 1
0 2
0 11
0 12
95 37%
2%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
0%
<1%
0%
1%
0%
7%
0%
8%
60%

7 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 10
2 21
50 6%
0%
<1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
<1%
9%
2%
20%
45%
Ethnicity: Both Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic Latino 16 10% 0 0% 3 3% Ethnicity: Declined to answer 12 8% 0 0% 9 8%
Source: ECTR Supplemental MHSA Race/Ethnicity Survey

3 The MHSA categories of sexual orientation, veteran status, and current gender identity are excluded as instructed.

15 Staff Demographics
In this third year of the program, a total of 41 staff who work at the four Berkeley YMCA Head Start sites responded to an online survey in the summer of 2021 for the evaluation. The survey was sent to 61 YMCA Head Start staff, including teachers and assistant teachers, managers, directors, coaches, family advocates, mental health consultants, and program assistants. The response rate was 67%.

Survey respondents in this third year of the ECTR program reflect the general breakdown of respondents over the past three years. They work at West YMCA (37%), South YMCA (32%), Oceanview (17%), and Vera Casey (12%) (See Table 6 below). Over half of survey participants have worked at the YMCA for greater than six years (52%), with 39% who have worked for Head Start for over 9 years. About a quarter of respondents have worked at YMCA for 3-5 years (27%) and about one in five have worked there for two years or fewer (22%). Participants include teachers (44%) and teacher assistants (24%), family advocates (12%), and administrative staff such as center directors (7%), and other staff (10%). The great majority are female (83%), and nearly half identified as either Hispanic/Latinx (34%) or Black/African-American (17%). Just under half of respondents were also Resiliency Champions (42%).

16 Table 6. Demographics of ECTR Staff Surveyed
Year 1 % Year 2 % Year 3 %
Site
Oceanview
South YMCA
Vera Casey
West YMCA
Other (responses: all sites, admin office)

17%
30%
8%
43%
2%

21%
31%
12%
35%
2%

17%
32%
12%
37%
2%
Length of time at YMCA
Less than one year
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
More than 9 years

12%
22%
20%
12%
35%

8%
14%
27%
10%
42%

5%
17%
27%
12%
39%
Job Title/Role
Teacher Assistant
Teacher/Head Teacher
Area Manager
Center Director
Coach
Family Advocate
Mental Health Consultant
Program Assistant
Other Manager
Other (responses: floater, inclusion manager, kitchen)
Missing

30%
37%
5%
5%
2%
5%
5%
3%
7%
2%
0%

25%
48%
6%
6%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
6%
2%

24%
44%
0%
7%
0%
12%
0%
0%
0%
10%
2%
Sex
Female
Male
Missing/Declined to answer

77%
5%
18%

85%
0%
15%

83%
0%
17%
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Hispanic or Latinx
Other
More than one race
Missing/Declined to answer

2%
7%
18%
0%
5%
30%
5%
3%
30%

0%
10%
17%
0%
8%
37%
2%
0%
27%

0%
12%
17%
0%
12%
34%
5%
0%
12%
Staff is a Resiliency Champion
Yes
No
Missing
N/A

35%
50%
15%

42%
51%
7%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52), May/June 2021 (N=41)

17 HTA developed and administered a 39-item online survey to teachers and staff at the four sites in May and June 2020. The survey was developed by HTA in collaboration with ECTR program leaders adapting some questions from the Year 1 survey as well as existing surveys from the City of Berkeley’s 2016-17 Trauma-Informed Systems pilot program and a 2016 trauma-informed practices self-assessment from defendingchildhoodoregon.org. The survey is administered annually to assess change in how staff understand how their own past trauma impacts their work, how staff view children and families who have experienced trauma and how that impacts their behavior, and changes in how staff approach the children and families with whom they work. In the first year, the survey was administered in the summer of 2019 and designed slightly differently as a post-retrospective survey. It asked staff how they would have answered questions prior to ECTR trainings began and then how they would answer in the past 30 days. A few questions were added over the next two years in response to Covid-19 and other programmatic changes.

ECTR’s Theory of Change posits that as staff attend trainings and learn about recognizing trauma, their own triggers, and strategies to working with children and families struggling with trauma, staff will change their own perceptions and feelings about trauma through reflections on their own lives and how that affects the way they work with children. Subsequently, they will begin to approach students and parents/guardians from a trauma- informed perspective (including shifting their framing from “What’s wrong with you?” to “What happened to you?”) and develop more positive, empathic relationships with students and their parents/guardians helping them to better identify trauma in the children/families they serve. Ultimately, staff will then change their actions and behaviors as it relates to children and families, and make more successful and “appropriate” mental health referrals. (See Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. ECTR Theory of Change for Staff

Source: Adapted from the ECTR Theory of Change

While there was incremental growth in the Year 1 survey results across staff views, their perceptions of children and their parents, as well as their behavior working with children and families there is limited growth in this second year.

The YMCA and its ECTR project entered unchartered territory as a result of the stay-at-home orders resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. While the ECTR trainings continued online and staff remained engaged with families, the ECTR project model is built on the premise that staff have day-to-day, intensive, in-person interactions with children throughout the school day, five days a week. Once the Head Start program shifted to virtual, children were no longer in the care of YMCA staff and YMCA staff did not have many opportunities to employ the strategies they continued to learn in trainings and Resiliency Circles. Their work with families was frequently limited to quick phone calls to check in. Likewise, the survey was not designed to measure the impact of a program that is shifting and pivoting to such a degree but rather for a structured and set program. This is important to highlight in order to contextualize those findings in that very unique year of ECTR programming.

Self-Perception Perception of
Children and Parents
Behavior Towards and
with Children and
Parents

18 Staff’s familiarity with trauma-informed approaches continues to grow every year of this ECTR project. Over a third (39%) of participants expressed that they were “very” familiar with trauma-informed approaches this year which is an increase from 29% who expressed this last year, and 18% who expressed it in the first year (See Table 7 below).

Table 7. Staff Familiarity with Trauma Trainings
Pre Post Year 2 Post Year 3
How familiar are you with trauma-informed approaches to support children/families? n % n % n %
Very familiar 11 18% 15 29% 16 39%
Somewhat familiar 39 65% 36 69% 23 56%
Not at all familiar 7 12% 1 2% 0 0%
Not Sure 1 2% 0 0% 2 5%
No response 2 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52), May/June 2021 (N=41)

On average, survey respondents attended more trainings (3.42) than the year prior (2.25) through the ECTR project.

See Table 8 below.

Table 8. Number of Trauma Trainings Attended by Staff
Post Year 2 Post Year 3
n % n %
0 trainings 7 14% 3 7%
1 training 13 25% 9 22%
2 trainings 8 15% 3 7%
3 trainings 10 19% 7 17%
4 trainings 12 23% 5 12%
5 trainings 2 4% 5 12%
6 trainings n/a 6 15%
7 trainings n/a 7 2%
8 trainings n/a 8 5%
Mean # of
trainings
attended

2.25 3.42
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, May/June 2020 (N=52) Month 2021 (N=41)

Staff Views and Perceptions
In the survey, staff were asked about their views and perceptions of their own trauma and triggers, as well as their perceptions of children and families. In this third year of the program, staff felt most confident “that my actions had the ability to help a child who has been exposed to trauma” (76%) and “in using trauma informed strategies” (69%). These results are reflective of those in Year 2 (See Table 9 below). In questions pertaining to triggers, there was an increased awareness by staff of what their triggers were both in terms of their own trauma (49% compared to 29% in Year 2), and that of the behavior of a child (56% up from 49% in Year 2).

We see two years in a row recently where very few staff report they had difficulty maintaining a positive learning environment because of challenging classroom behavior (3% in Year 2 and 7% in Year 3). This may be related to the fact that staff were not regularly working directly with children at the time of the survey as a result of closures for Covid-19.

19 Table 9. Staff Self-Perception

Pre
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y1
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y2
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y3
% “Often” or
“Always”
I felt I could handle every serious behavioral issue by myself 38% 43% 38% 38%
I reflected on my own trauma and triggers 38% 67% 29% 49% I noticed when I felt triggered by a child’s behavior 51% 70% 49% 56% I felt confident in using trauma informed strategies 69% 74% 67% 69% I had difficulty maintaining a positive learning
environment because of challenging classroom
behavior
21% 26% 3% 7%
I felt confident that my actions had the ability to help a child who has been exposed to trauma 76% 81% 72% 76%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52) May/June 2021 (N=41) Note: Percentages are valid (i.e. exclude missing and N/A responses). Pre and Post Y1 results are among staff who responded to the item for both the Pre and Post time periods. Percentage of missing or N/A responses for perception, behavior, and morale items in the Pre/Post Year 1 survey ranged from 20-36%, and from 15%-44% in the Post Year 2 survey and 12%-27% in Post-Year 3 Survey.

For the survey items regarding staff perceptions of students and parents, staff sentiment about children and their future demonstrated a generally positive trend over the duration of this project that are increasingly seen and understood family and child trauma and the benefit of their using trauma-informed strategies in their work. (See Table 10 below). None of the staff “felt that a child’s actions/behavior made me irritated” (from 14% in post-Year 1 to 6% in post-Year 2 and 0% in Post Year 3) and most continued to feel generally hopeful about the lives of the children” (78% in Year 2 and Year 3) and “saw” how “class disruptions” or “behavior problems” could be related to trauma the child has experienced” (74% compared to 38% in Year 2). In Post Year 3, there was an increase in how staff ‘saw’ how children (from 56% to 62%) and parents (from 46% to 56%) were impacted by trauma and also how staff saw “improvements in a child’s behavior after I used trauma-informed strategies” (from 33% in Year 2 to 63% in Year 3).

Staff understanding “why families may not seek out or accept mental health services/programs they need” dropped from 78% in Year 2 to 56% in Year 3. This may be an area worth investigating, whether staff need to revisit training topics or whether this is just a symptom of their frustration working with certain families they feel would benefit from services.

“I have learned a lot, especially a few years ago with the anger issues. Parents are not getting help. We have to treat the parent as a child when trying to tell them what is going on. Explain it slow. I understand where parents are coming from too.” – Pre-school Teacher, 2021

As staff described in a Year One focus group, participants described the challenges of getting parents to see the issues with their child and to get them to agree to seek services. • “It’s difficult if families don’t agree that there are behavioral issues, they don’t want to see it.” • “At the end of the day it’s the family’s choice to get extra services, and it is frustrating when they decline.” • “Parents don’t want their kids labeled”
• “We will put in referrals for extra services, but it’s up to the parents to accept.” • “We need to educate the parents.”

20 An extra question was added in Post Year 3 that reflected on the impact of the trauma training taken by staff on ability to see strengths in families. Just over half (56%) of the staff felt that they were better able to recognize this than before the training.

Table 10. Changes in Perceptions of Students and Parents Pre
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y1
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y2
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y3
% “Often” or
“Always”
A child’s actions/behavior irritated me 11% 14% 6% 0%
I saw how children at my site have been impacted by
trauma 67% 69% 56% 62%
I saw how parents/families have been impacted by
trauma 66% 66% 46% 56%
I saw how “class disruptions” or “behavior problems”
could be related to trauma the child has experienced 67% 74% 38% 74% I saw improvements in a child’s behavior after I used
trauma-informed strategies 46% 59% 33% 63%
I felt hopeful about the lives of the children at my site 81% 84% 78% 78% I understood why families may not seek out or accept
mental health services/programs they need 70% 70% 78% 56% I see strengths in families I would not have recognized before the trauma trainings -- -- -- 56%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52), May/June 2021 (N=41) Note: Percentages are valid (i.e. exclude missing and N/A responses). Pre and Post Y1 results are among staff who responded to the item for both the Pre and Post time periods. Percentage of missing or N/A responses for perception, behavior, and morale items in the Pre/Post Year 1 survey ranged from 20-36%, and from 15%-44% in the Post Year 2 survey, and from 17%-22% in Post Year 3.

Staff Behaviors
Nearly all staff (91%) reported that they kept themselves “calm and regulated in moments working with a student who is challenging.” As with Year 2, about one in five respondents (21%) still “felt hesitant to refer students to mental health resources.” (See Table 11 below.) A high percentage of staff emphasized teamwork in their role with 80% “working with other co-worker to support a child with emotional or behavior issues related to trauma” (from 68% in Post Year 2).

The percentage of staff who “knew where or to whom to go when I had questions about a child’s or parent’s mental health”, while still high, had dropped from 85% in Post Year 2 to 80% in Post Year 3. However, the percentage of staff who “used strategies rooted in trauma informed practices” dropped more dramatically from 74% in Post Year 2 to 58%, a proportion below those at Year One of 67%. It would seem that although staff still knew where and who to turn to with questions about a child or parents mental health, their ability to draw on their trauma informed training and use the tools they had learned to cope with their responses to challenging behaviors had dropped.

With a return to in-school teaching, the results remained stable or showed a slight increase to “pre pandemic” percentages on questions about relationship-building with families like “I felt comfortable talking to parents about their child’s emotional, developmental, or behavioral issues” (68% to 71%),“I worked with a child’s parent/family to support a child’s emotional or behavior issues related to trauma” (53% to 61%), “I was able to build rapport with most parents/families” (66% to 65%). However, while 71% of staff “felt comfortable talking to parents/families about their child’s emotional, developmental, or behavioral issues related to trauma”, an increase from 68% in Post Year 2, there was a drop from Post Year 2 in sharing information on trauma and its effects on child’s behavior with families (53% to 38%) as well as sharing ways to “manage challenging trauma-related

21 behavior” (50% to 38%). Three quarters (77%) of the staff reported feeling “more compassion for the families/children I work with.”

Table 11. Changes in Staff Behaviors
Pre
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y1
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y2
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y3
% “Often” or
“Always”
I was able to build rapport with most parents/families 79% 81% 66% 65% I felt comfortable talking to parents/families about their child’s emotional, developmental, or behavioral issues
related to trauma
67% 79% 68% 71%
I worked with a co-worker to support a child with
emotional or behavior issues related to trauma 80% 84% 64% 80% I worked with a child’s parent/family to support a child who had emotional or behavior issues related to trauma 63% 75% 53% 61% I shared information about trauma and its effects on
behavior with parents/families 50% 67% 53% 38%
I used strategies rooted in trauma informed practices 67% 79% 74% 58% I shared ways that I manage challenging trauma-related
behavior with parents/families 51% 63% 50% 38%
I felt hesitant to refer a child to mental health resources (e.g., mental health specialist, outside mental health
services)
21% 28% 21% 12%
I knew where or to whom to go when I had questions
about a child’s or parent’s mental health 79% 81% 85% 80% I kept myself calm and regulated when working with a child with challenging behavior 87% 93% 94% 91%
I feel more compassion for the families/children I work with -- -- -- 77%

Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52), May/June 2021(N=41) Note: Percentages are valid (i.e. exclude missing and N/A responses). Pre and Post Y1 results are among staff who responded to the item for both the Pre and Post time periods. Percentage of missing or N/A responses for perception, behavior, and morale items in the Pre/Post Year 1 survey ranged from 20-36%, and from 15%-44% in the Post Year 2 survey, and from 15% -22% in Post Year 3 of the Survey.

In open-ended survey responses, staff described how the trauma trainings and/or resiliency circles impacted their awareness of how trauma impacts families and children:

“The trauma training to me brought about an awareness of some of the after effects trauma have on children and families. It taught sensitivity, empathy, and compassion.”

“I am much more empathetic and understanding towards the struggles families are facing, and how they might project those struggles.”

“Just to understand their emotions and be a good listener about families emotional needs, look for mental support when family need it, and the most important support our children emotionally in the classroom.”

Some were more specific in how the training had given them a new perspective and greater understanding of the impact of trauma on children and families:

22 “I learn that [it] depend[s] on us if we want to keep a negative thought all the time with us or we can move on to a positive way.”

“The circles help me to stop and think carefully before responding to a situation.”

“More compassionate and understanding. More reflective about behaviors I see as associated to trauma.”

“I understand that how we feel, this will be the environment in which those around us will be. So we have to know how to control our emotions and have a positive mind.”

“The trainings have helped remind me of the signs of trauma in young children and how challenging behaviors can sometimes be connected to trauma experiences as well.”

Others appreciated the training and how it enabled them to do their job better:

“I appreciate the opportunity to received quality trauma trainings, which help me to provide support to the families and myself.”

Or helped them at home or in their world outside YMCA:

“After having trauma training, I think about what type of trauma a child may be going thru at home. It also helps me with my grandchildren that I am raising.”

Staff also reflected on how the resiliency circles helped them to understand how trauma impacted themselves and the importance of self-care:

“The training helped me to understand first myself and then understand others.”

“The resiliency circles have been a good reminder that self-care and a supportive environment is crucial to reduce stress levels which have been higher than normal with the impact of the pandemic on staff, families and children.”

“I am thoughtful instead of reactive.”

“I let out my inner want[s] and hopes.”

“Learn to always take care of myself. Self-care is important for me. If I don’t maintain myself strong and healthy no one will.”

One respondent referred to the context of the last two years and the impact it has had on everyone:

“We all had experienced a hard time for this pandemic, and we all need help for support this feelings. I believe that we need to help each other.”

Staff Morale
The evaluation also asked five questions, 2 from Post Y1 and Y2 and 3 new questions for Post Y3 to assess staff morale at the YMCA Head Start sites. Although the positive responses to these questions were higher in Year 2, the two questions reveal that a high proportion of staff continue to enjoy working at the school (89%), and staff

23 relationships are overall positive and supportive (80%). For the three extra questions added in Year 3, responses for two were at the same level for other items in this category, with 80% of staff feeling “more compassion for my fellow staff member” and “I take care of myself” (81%). However, a comparatively lower proportion of the staff (62%) felt “seen and heard at YMCA, as a full human” (See Table 12 below).

As the program evolves post-grant funding and staff are expected to work together to address children’s mental health issues, we anticipate that staff morale and the quality of staff relationships will remain high or even increase.

This is also important to monitor as staff morale could help reveal whether there are other issues impeding the program’s successful implementation.

Table 12. Staff Morale

Pre
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y1
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y2
% “Often” or
“Always”
Post Y3
% “Often” or
“Always”
The relationships among the staff at this school
were generally positive and supportive 85% 85% 91% 80%
I enjoyed working at this school 98% 94% 93% 89%
I feel seen and heard at YMCA, as a full human -- -- -- 62% I feel more compassion for my fellow staff
members -- -- -- 80%
I take care of myself -- -- -- 81%
Source: ECTR Evaluation Staff Survey, June/July 2019 (N=60), May/June 2020 (N=52), May/June 2021 (N=41) Note: Percentages are valid (i.e. exclude missing and N/A responses). Pre and Post Y1 results are among staff who responded to the item for both the Pre and Post time periods. Percentage of missing or N/A responses for perception, behavior, and morale items in the Pre/Post Year 1 survey ranged from 20-36%, and from 15%-44% in the Post Year 2 survey and from 12% to 17% in Post Year 3.

“Our teaching staff have exhibited a level of empathy towards the children and families whereas they have purposed themselves to see them differently with the intention to better understand rather than labeling or pathologizing.

Another layer to this shift has been their own awareness of their past historical trauma and how close their adverse childhood experiences are to the children and families we serve. With the heightened awareness and knowledge, they too have begun the work towards healing and restoration within their own lives.” -Dr. Anita Smith, ECTR Project Coordinator, 2020

Mental Health Referrals
Number of Mental Health Referrals
As a critical component of the MHSA grant, mental health referrals were to be tracked every year of the evaluation in order to measure change over time. Based on Program Information Reports (PIR) completed by the Mental Health Consultants and submitted to the Program Manager over the past three years, the number of mental health referrals slightly increased to five referrals last year and then decreased to 0 in this third year (Table 13). In theory, the number of referrals, a longer-term outcome, is expected to increase as more staff understand their role in identifying and supporting access to children’s mental health services.

24 Table 13. Number of Mental Health Referrals
School Year # Children Referred
2017-18 (baseline) 9
2018-19 4
2019-20 5
2020-21 0
Source: YMCA Program Information Reports (PIR) forms

The reality of this outcome measure however is that ECTR leaders have since concluded that connecting children via Mental Health Referrals to an external service may not be the best or most appropriate method of serving children who need services, especially now that site-based staff are holding children and their needs differently.

Referrals to “Appropriate” Mental Health Services
Originally, ECTR project leaders established a mental health consultation process where the teachers start their own early observations of children in collaboration with the observations of Mental Health Consultants/Specialists. They also complete forms that show patterns of behavior which allows for questions, rather than complaints, about a child for whom they would previously have no tangible behavioral examples. These forms provide an opportunity to discuss and initiate Trauma Informed Care strategies within the consultation meetings and classrooms.

Additionally, a new Mental Health Referral form, implemented in the fall of 2019, was initiated to be intentional about outside referrals and determine if they were “appropriate.” In other words, documenting whether staff contacted referral agencies before the referral, whether the agency was a thoughtful match for the child, whether families utilized the referral, and whether it met families’ needs. These are used by the Mental Health Consultants/Specialist during the parent meetings with their approval, to refer children out for mental health services to appropriate organizations that are trauma-trained and informed. Our Mental Health Consultants/Specialists initiate the connection with organizations and the parents to begin the intake process with the purpose of building rapport with the organization as a secondary contact if they have challenges connecting with the parents afterwards. Mental Health Consultants/Specialists do a 15- to 30-day follow-up with the parents to inquire about the follow through on acquiring services. If the parents have not followed through, then the Mental Health Consultants/Specialist inquires to see if they can help facilitate any further. If it is decided collaboratively with the parents that a therapeutic preschool setting would be a better fit for their child, then a Mental Health Consultant/Specialist would support them by accompanying them on a tour/visit of the new preschool. This initiates the intake process and move.

Four children received five referrals between December 2019 and July 2020. All (5 of 5) referrals were appropriate, in other words, the referral agency had availability to take new clients, is located somewhere accessible to the client, has experience with children age 0-5, is a cultural match for the child, and was given information about the child’s needs. Three of the four families utilized the services of the referral, and all families who utilized the services expressed that it met the families’ needs. One child/family was referred to the same agency twice but did not utilize the service the first time (February 2020) because of the stay-at-home orders. The second time (July 2020) the family did not utilize the service because the child’s mom indicated that she had not been contacted.

The ECTR project leaders have expanded their categorization to include mental health as well as behavioral health referrals. When designing the project, the project team initially thought referring more families to external mental health specialists would be the ideal scenario. As the project team has come to learn, that may not be the best option in terms of getting the right support to the children who need it. Additionally, getting families to agree that their child requires services and to agree to see a specialist is an ongoing challenge. Based on these learnings, the ECTR project has pivoted to support children who need a higher level of care in a much more appropriate and expeditious manner by bringing specialists directly into the classroom. As described by the project coordinator in 2020:

25 “Due to the early establishment of the new procedure which encourages early observations and inquiries, we have been able to have several children placed at two therapeutic preschools in the Bay Area being Maya Angelou Academy in Oakland and EBAC (East Bay Agency for Children) here in Berkeley. This can be seen as a rarity; due to classroom room size being considerably smaller than our classrooms, they fill up very fast. The collaboration with teachers and parents helps consider the wellbeing of the child and do not allow for things to be overlooked, ignored or dismissed. We have also had the benefit of working in collaboration with our Inclusion Team to coordinate having Behavioral Aides through Juvo (Autism and Behavioral Health Services) come into our classrooms to work with children who have both behavioral, developmental, and trauma concerns. We have been fortunate to witness the effectiveness of this support for current children within our program that would have otherwise been unmanageable within the classroom setting. These children’s parents were not able to benefit from mental health services due to many personal and systemic issues, so to provide these services has been a true turn around for these children.”
In this third year of the program and definitely since the pandemic began, leaders also see many outside referral agencies (e.g., therapeutic preschools) are no longer accepting new referrals for safety reasons. Outside referrals that were accepting new children were for virtual meetings that are not as effectively for children of this age, especially when they are with someone with whom children are unfamiliar. Program leaders describe that the need also changed as a result of trauma trainings because staff engagement with children changed. There was also the added benefit that when classrooms re-opened, spaces were limited initially to children of essential workers. These small class sizes were one of the benefits of the therapeutic preschools to begin with. The YMCA also increased the number of ADA aides available for one-on-one support for behavior and emotional issues in the classroom. This staff person was allowed into the classroom during the pandemic which allowed them to stay at the YMCA rather than be referred out. An unintended benefit was that all the other children in the classroom also learned to think differently about that child in terms of how to interact and play with them, rather than seeing them as “bad.” As program leaders see it, building the YMCA sites’ internal capacity was always central to the design of the grant.

When it comes to mental health referrals, “the action is where the kids are” and periodic pull outs takes a long time.

If they are able to bring in aid to the classroom for a child, that is more efficient than sending the child out twice a week. They plan to prioritize funding to internal specialists because external mental health referrals are only a small part of the picture. Having the internal capacity to support children builds staff confidence and what sets this program apart. They want the YMCA classroom to be the place for daily habit making, emotional development, learning how to work productively with others, and how to manage having a hard time. “We saw that investment in the last three years. We saw this lead to fewer mental health referrals. There was no outside capacity for referrals anyway but there was also less need.”

Conclusion
In this final year of the ECTR program, staff have demonstrated a commitment to trauma-informed and resiliency strategies and applying these strategies and others from trainings on topics such as Self Care and Emotional Intelligence in their day-to-day work with children and families as well as in their personal lives. Program leaders and staff describe in interviews how integrated these concepts have become in the culture of the YMCA sites and they are “rippling outward” to other sites based on the success other sites are seeing at the Berkeley YMCA sites.

ECTR leaders reflected on what would have happened over the past three years, especially during Covid closures, without the ECTR program:

“People would have been withdrawn, the resiliency wouldn’t have been there. If we were not prepared for the overload of emotional tension, we could do more harm than good… But because [foundation was] put in place, the rain boots were on when it’s storming, the majority of your body has been protected. You were affected by the pandemic but had the padding to bounce off stresses. We were always in community in sites –big community and

26 small community at each site. I saw how they banded together. You can feel like a teenager, so dysregulated. You can’t leave the house. We’d get on zoom and get together with your colleagues. No staff ended up in a corner in the fetal position. They can’t say they don’t know about trauma. They have a common language… I would go to staff meetings during the closure and noticed a different type of capacity among staff. Center directors had some words to acknowledge people. There was consistency around empathy, appreciation, and sharing feelings. People were crying during staff meetings –sharing ‘this is so hard for me.’ People felt comfortable having these outpourings and knowing how to respond. And setting up that positive experience was remarkable. We would not have had that without the foundation [we built three years ago]… Some county sites were also able to ask for help –management was a part of our meetings even though they weren’t part of grant. They knew they needed something although they couldn’t name it. They knew we existed but they didn’t have a mental health specialist. They implemented what we told them –I was floored. I hadn’t worked with them but they received [my recommendations] and put it onto action. It trickled down.”

We did see an unexpected finding in this third year of the staff survey where the percentage of staff who “used strategies rooted in trauma informed practices” dropped from 74% in Year 2 to 58% in Year 3, a proportion below those at Year One of 67%. While newly onboarded staff receive training on trauma-informed strategies, it may be beneficial for all staff to have a “refresher” training on the topic, either by an outside trainer or the Resiliency Champions.

As the grant funding ends, ECTR program leaders plan to continue, sustain, and evolve this trauma-informed work with the Berkeley sites and across other YMCA sites.

1. Systems change:
a. While work still needs to be done to implement trauma-informed systems, trauma-informed language has been incorporated into the program. The CEO now talks about trauma-informed systems. The seeds have been planting for program leaders to carry this work forward and enact system-level changes.
b. Providing more mental health support has become a priority, and there is a desire to increase the number of mental health staff rather than outsourcing mental health services to outside providers.

ECTR program leaders have also committed to integrating mental health employees into teams and have provided teachers with additional mental health training and support.

2. Funding and Fundraising Priorities:
a. ECTR leaders are looking into additional grant funding after the current grant expires. There are also potential sources of federal funding.
b. One priority area will be securing funding to ensure that every site eventually has its own mental health and behavioral specialists (mental health staff are currently split across three local sites).

Program leaders anticipate that, following the pandemic, there will be an increased interest in funding opportunities for mental health programming.
c. Training for teachers around trauma-informed care and emotional intelligence will also be prioritized.
d. ECTR leaders will also seek out additional funding to address early Head Start wellness goals.

Wellness goals are usually centered around physical health (e.g., asthma and obesity), but ECTR leaders hope to find funding to implement a multi-faceted approach to wellness.

3. Developing Wellness Policy:
a. ECTR leaders are in the process of developing a wellness policy that pulls together themes of wellness, self-care, coping, and emotional intelligence. There has been a programmatic and cultural shift to a growth mindset, and goals have shifted from surviving to thriving. One way that this reframing has been put into practice has been the implementation of Wellness Day, which used to be Staff Appreciation Day. Now, the day is spent on addressing different components of wellness through activities like yoga, a trip to the park, music and dance, games, and socializing with peers.

4. Incorporation of PEARLS:

27 a. ECTR has begun incorporating the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events Screener (PEARLS) into programming. Additionally, ECTR staff have worked to improve parental awareness of PEARLS through parent trainings, though not all components of PEARLS have yet been covered.

28 Appendix

Interview Summary

ECTR Staff Interview Analysis

1. Please tell me your role at YMCA and how long you’ve been in that role. Are you also a Resiliency Champion?

Nutrition Specialist: Has been in YMCA Nutrition Spec. Nutrition Ed for about a year and a half. Prior to this role, was a family advocate for about 2 years as part of Resiliency Champions.

Health and Family Service Specialist: Has been working as Health and Family Service Specialist for about 2 years now and at the YMCA almost 6 years. Family advocate before and shifted to more health aspects.

Pre-school Teacher: Pre-school teacher, 3-5 for 7 years now. Started with infants and toddlers. Pre- schoolers last 4 years. Not a Resiliency Champion.

2. What, if anything, have you taken from the trainings in your work with children, their parents, your colleagues or your personal life?
Overall, all interviewed staff described the trainings as helpful both professionally and personally. One common theme across interviewed staff was that staff have been able to apply what they learned through these trainings in their day-to-day interactions with children, their colleagues and with their own children.

For instance, one staff member relayed that deep breathing is a common practice that she uses every day with her students. These trainings have also helped staff better communicate with students.

What follows is a high-level summary of staff feedback by training type:

Brain training:
• All staff found this training helpful and reinforce what they knew before the training. • Staff have applied what they have taken from the trainings in their work and personal lives. • One staff member noted that this training provided tools that were realistic for staff use. • One staff member shared that the training introduced her to different terminology and approaches to support her students. Additionally, the training helped her reflect on her own triggers and sparked an interest in mental health.

Self-care trainings (Emotional intelligence and Emotional Detox):
• One staff member appreciated that all staff were in the same space and that the speaker was someone staff could relate to.
• Another interview staff relayed that these trainings were helpful to shared and hear what others were doing to cope with pandemic-related stress.
• Interviewed staff learned skills that they have applied while at work and/or at school. For instance, one staff member noted that it helped her frame how she might approach or process someone else’s behavior (i.e., pausing intentionally before reacting to something). Another staff member shared one practice she took from the training is going on walks and taking breaks so that she is able to present and fully engaged with her students or with her own children at home.

“When I go home, set work aside to focus on kids. This was hard to do before but with self-care training and experience it has gotten easier.” – Health and Family Service Specialist

29 “I talked with other staff about these trainings about what’s going on and/or give approaches and suggestions to take care of ourselves. We’re all feeling this way so became a great way to accept that and it’s ok to take time.” – Health and Family Service Specialist

“We are the ones that hold power and we can learn a lot from children by listening and watching them, their verbal and physical reactions and using that to support them.” – Health and Family Service Specialist

• Only one of the three interviewed staff members participated in a resiliency circle. This staff member said that while she likes the idea of these circles, she had some reservations about sharing what she felt. She added that maybe with more time she would warm up to being more open during the conversations.

Resiliency Champion Trainings:
• All interviewed staff appreciated that staff from different sites and roles within the organization participated in these trainings.
• One staff member noted that these trainings reinforced what she already knew and that the case studies examined during the training provided a framework for this work. • Trainer (Julie) taught them how to share this information with colleagues and parents.

“The Resiliency Champion Trainings helped reinforce what I already knew. We as childcare providers, I was looking at it as helpful for staff. Not everything is peaches and cream. There are issues that come with staff. I could see this as something they could use.” – Nutrition Specialist

“I really appreciated coming together. We all hold the same values. The resiliency circles helped us support those conversations without making it burdensome to talk about things that are hard. I was able to confide in them.” – Health and Family Service Specialist

3. MH referrals to therapeutic schools/places outside YMCA etc now shifted to behavior aides in classrooms.

How is that different? Better? Worse?

Interviewed staff believe that staff who participated in the recent trainings are more aware of mental health needs of children before referring them out than before receiving the trainings. One staff member noted that she refers children to their mental health consultant but that only a few students have required a referral.

4. Work during Covid? Self-care, self-regulation, trauma lens? In what ways are you using these skills if at all during covid?

Two of the three staff members reported using skills they learned from the self-care and stress management training during the pandemic. One staff member shared that meditation was very helpful to check-in with herself. She added that she not only shared meditation exercises with her mom, but also told her parents about it.

Nutrition Specialist:

Yes, hard, distance learning. Self-care and stress management were most useful. The strategies mentioned before were probably most useful.

Health and Family Service Specialist:

Helpful, had a lot of personal situations. Families past away. My emotional well-being was affected. Meditation was the biggest thing that helped me. Tuning into my body and understanding what was happening. Used to

30 have lots of panic attacks –tingling, breathing signs. Started meditation. Would think about family and kids.

Mom is a teacher at West Y. Shared these with her too. Used these concepts at work and at home. Supported staff –being at home, Zoom meetings. Having them talk to teachers and staff -kids are stuck at home they need more activities. At home, you can meditate, read books together. Tell parents they need time to support child at home but also take care of themselves.

Pre-school Teacher:

Did help. Reminder you’re stuck in house you can only do a couple things. Reminder of what is occurring in other people’s homes maybe not your own home. Trauma doesn’t end just bc it’s not in your home and we’re not at work. Still happening.

5. Anything else you’d like to share about these trainings, your work with colleagues, families or children?

• One staff member would’ve wanted to see the Resiliency Circles continue past the sunset of the grant. • A staff member would like to see more support for staff/adults to reduce staff burnout. • Two staff members shared that the trainings provided tools to better support parents

“They may feel like not great parents –this gives us support that there are diff parenting styles and it’s ok if you don’t have all the tools. But we’re here to support you with what you do have.” – Health and Family Service Specialist

Nutrition Specialist:

Something that came up during trainings, didn’t cover physical touch re: trauma. Know that has come up in prior work. Thought I had.

Since grant is sunsetting, this is a great start to make everyone more aware of work. Would have loved to see R Circles to continue w staff. Education staff on trauma informed practices is important for providing care to children, but staff burnout and lack of support for adults when there are challenges. Not sure what has been going on. Want that more visible and strengthened. Would be really impactful. For entire program.

What have you heard about end of grant activities?
Haven’t had good pulse on activities since stopped R Champions. Large trainings are one and done. Haven’t had sense this is ending or closing. With such a big program. Want to make work visible –can be challenge to get everyone up speed.

Health and Family Service Specialist:

Trauma and resiliency trainings, really enjoyed it. Sparked my interest in this work. Excited to start with field work w Dr. Anita. Now w staffing support. Will be able in Sept to be able to do it more differently with families. Is this effective and maybe change it. Even though I do hear needs, want to apply it with parents.

Trust, if we can be emotionally tuned in with them they will be more communicative w us. They may feel like not great parents –this gives us support that there are diff parenting styles and it’s ok if you don’t have all the tools. But we’re here to support you with what you do have.

Pre-school Teacher:

I have learned a lot, esp a few years ago with the anger issues. Parents not getting help. Have to treat parent as a child when trying to tell them what is going on. Explain it slow. Understand where parents are coming from too. Self-care recently –trying to help morale improvement. Could apply to personal lives. If you deal with that on outside. Can leave it at door when you come in.

Her strategy: Changing the environment. Same mess but diff toilet. Can’t moving and changing jobs bc have to do work on inside. Not something I’ve always done but now I see it. Others are like me, hear that too.

31 Also DB example relationship w mother –have seen relationship with mother and kids. Could offer help who is having same struggles.

Focus Group Notes

Date of Focus Group: 11/27/2019
Facilitator: Sophie Lyons, HTA

Participants:
• Family advocate
• Teacher
• Teacher
• Enrollment and childcare
• Teacher
• Teacher
• Teacher

6. Tell me about your work with children. What are one or two examples of the MOST challenging behaviors for you and how do you typically handle them?

• Sometimes kids have not been identified as having or needing an individual family service plan; teachers and staff do not know their diagnosis
o Teachers are not always equipped to deal with behavior issues, causes strain o Need to work with kid one on one to address their individual needs – discipline and positive reinforcement
• Parents are low income, affects the social life of families o Some kids are in single parent households
o Often behavioral issues are physical in the classroom– fighting, pushing, biting o Teachers have years of experience and can recognize
• It’s the undiagnosed children or kids who have family issues who have behavior issues o Children are physical towards the adults, not always towards other kids o Teachers take a child development classes, and learn a little bit about how to handle issues, but is it not always enough
o Personal experience as parent with a child at Head Start - she had a child with behavioral issues, so has learned from that and understands the parent perspective, but it is still very challenging to work with some parents
o Parents are not as educated (about child development) and are in denial; they also pass down generational trauma
• Difficult if families don’t agree that there are behavioral issues, they don’t want to see it o At the end of the day it’s the family’s choice to get extra services, and it is frustrating when they decline
o Parents don’t want their kids labeled
• Staff/teachers will put in referrals for extra services, but it’s up to the parents to accept o Need to educate the parents
• In past 5 years, has seen/experienced more aggression from the kids, but not sure why o Kids are impulsive and quick to anger, short tempers, quick to react

Steps teachers and staff take to address issues
• Not allowed to call a parent for pick up, so they have to manage the behavior at school

32 • Teachers rely on each other to take over when they need a break – They are often able to recognize when they need to be separated from the child because they are getting overwhelmed/tired/too frustrated o They use a team approach in the classroom
• Document using ABC charts and they call parents to talk about their child when they complete these forms o Teachers try to focus on the positive with the parent when they come pick up the child, but also talk about the challenges with the parent
o Use parent teacher conferences to talk about the challenges and the help kids need • Teachers and staff try to drive home the point of safety to parents – help parents understand that they have a goal of keeping classrooms safe, so when one child is having behavioral issues, it means that one teacher has to work individually with them, which can decrease safety in the classroom • When they talk to parents who blame other kids, they need to help parents see the good and the bad – they try to help parents see that all kids need to and deserve to be here • Some parents are in denial – say the kid is fine with them and behaviors only happen in school o Have to try and get parents to see why that might be the case, that kids behave differently in different environments
• Try to give the kids all the love they can, but there is still a lot of stress o Even one challenging behavior kid can be a lot as they need the one on one time with teachers and staff

7. Tell me about your relationships with parents. How do you handle difficult conversations around their child’s behavior/needs? What is your process like when working with parents around their child’s challenging behavior/needs?

• A lot of times parent issues take priority over the child’s issues o Talking about the child turns into a conversation about the parents’ issues and needs o Parents get this help from family advocates, but cannot get out the mindset when they talk to teachers as well
o The teachers are focused on the child’s needs, while the FA is focused more on working with the whole family
• Many parents are in denial – “they don’t do this at home…” o Or the challenging behavior is normal at home, so parent doesn’t see it as an issue o Or parents who say they will be involved in finding a solution, but then they avoid the conversation with teachers
• If a parent does come to school to discuss the child during the day, a teacher has to leave the classroom to talk to a parent who is upset and could cause another safety issue o Parents say hurtful things to the teachers, sometimes they are discriminatory and disrespectful o Parent treat teachers like they are their employees sometimes

What could help the conversations with parents:
• Need a more strictly enforced code of conduct for anyone who comes in – parents need to stick to it, there is no consequence when parents do not follow it
o At most there is a conversation
o They just want parents to understand that they are trying to help the child in a school setting, trying to get them ready for bigger schools – teachers need help getting parents to understand what school is, that it’s not just childcare
• Parents also experience a lot of trauma – teachers and staff know and recognize this

33 o It’s important to think about who is talking to the parents, a white staff member telling a parent of color what to do may not be effective

8. What has been your experience with working with colleagues to help a child/family who has challenging behavior issues? What role do you see for yourself in helping families access mental health services? (Have you tried to help a child or family get mental health support? Why or why not?) • Sometimes there is a misunderstanding – teachers know they are supposed to serve families o But sometimes teachers don’t feel that they have the support they need from administration – there’s a lot of turnover
• Have mental health consultation meetings to talk about development of children o When families meet with different people who are telling them the same thing, this can help the family get on board
• Try and learn the personality of the family, who is the best person/teacher to approach them • Case consultation is important, it’s when you get to sit down with families • Inclusion specialists and speech consultants are very helpful, teachers feel like they can go to them for help with a kid
• If you’re a new teacher, you’ll get walked over by the parents, need to have a veteran teacher in the room with you
• Staff have to be on the same page, need to have good working relationships o Teachers will talk to parents and then they will go to FA, the FA needs to know what’s going on before they talk to the parent
o Some parents would rather talk to the FA, so all teachers and staff need to be aware and on the same page, FAs sometimes know more about what is going on with the family o But sometimes it is challenging when parents feel more comfortable talking to the FA (rather than the teacher) – raises a red flag for the teacher, they feel as if families should be comfortable talking to the teacher
• Line of support exists, but sometimes the inclusion/mental health consultants are not available enough or you are too busy to do the one on one with them
• When you do a referral form, but then the ball gets dropped or there is no follow up, this can be very frustrating

9. Some of you may have taken an online survey from us a few months ago. We have some results that we want to share. Are these numbers surprising? Do they sound accurate? Why or why not? a. The percentage of staff who reflected on their own trauma and triggers increased from before to after the program started: 38% to 67%.
b. The percentage of staff who could identify when they felt triggered by a child’s behavior or actions increased from before to after the program started: 51% to 70%.

• First statistic is accurate likely – Julie’s training could have helped staff see their own trauma and triggers, her introduction about herself was the best thing she presented o Not sure about the second stat – may not be accurate

34 10. Have you attended any of the recent trauma trainings (Understanding Trauma Informed Practices for Early Childhood Programs with Julie Kurtz; Self Care: Getting a PhD in You! with Julie Kurtz; Resiliency Champion trainings)?

• Didn’t find the trainings helpful – not agreeable to Julie’s approach (agreement from one other person in the group) • Initial story that Julie told about her own background was interesting and helpful, but then the rest of the presentations were not as helpful
o Would be more helpful to have this person be able to show what they can do in the classroom, not just tell them what might work
• Every situation in the classroom is different, so what they are being trained on will not be the same or work for everyone
o Training needs to be tweaked for different situations • The “if you do x, then y will happen” way of training doesn’t help as staff knows that kids have differences in what they need
o Training is too “basic” teachers are more aware of trauma, they know more than the trainers expected
• The trainings are way too long – a multi hour training is hard to pay attention to (group agreement on this) • Maybe the trainings should be done in smaller groups (group agreement on this) o Not everyone is paying attention, therefore they won’t bring what they learned back to the classroom
o Center by center would be better, smaller group trainings would be more effective • Some teachers are not ready because they have their own traumas o Teachers have to deal with their own traumas
o Trainings may heighten some people’s awareness of traumas • Anita provides more individualized care for teachers, which has helped o Teachers love working with Anita
• There has been progress in getting teachers to understand and recognize trauma, but there is still work to do • It’s the person, not the trainings themselves, that might be the problem o Didn’t vibe with the style, too lecture based, too long o Interactive activities were better, need movement activities

11. Has anything you learned in trainings changed or helped with your relationships with children? Parents? Colleagues? In your personal life?
• Learning the physicality of what happens when they are triggered by a child’s behavior o Smell reminders, etc.
• Talking about the importance of self-care was helpful, now they think about the self-care when a child is exhibiting challenging behavior
• There is a line that parents cross, we can’t blame the teachers for reacting poorly sometimes o How do you “train” teachers to not have their own reactions, to not take things personally • Need concrete strategies for how to work with parents • Teachers are champions for each other, they feel protective of each other • But parents also need actual consequences when they break the code of conduct, it can’t just be o Bargaining team with the union is working on the importance of the code of conduct and holding parents accountable

35 Full Narrative Transcript, ECTR Project Coordinator

1. How did Head Start address trauma in children/families before the ECTR program? Previous to the City of Berkeley Trauma grant the YMCA of the East Bay had established Mental Health Consulting whereas monthly classroom consultation meetings were conducted with teachers, Center Directors, Family Advocates and Mental Health Consultants/Specialists. Within these meetings, classroom dynamics were discussed which includes those children with what was considered “challenging behaviors” as well as resources that could be utilized to support them. This collaboration meeting would yield mental health consultation strategies and plans that would include social and emotional strategies to support the children on the radar and the classrooms as a whole.

In addition to these meetings individual child consultation meetings would be held with parents in order to gain more developmental and historical information that would help to better understand what was going on with their child and any family dynamics that were attributing to their child’s presentation within the classroom. Additionally, within these parent meetings, a Positive Behavioral Support Plan would be established with strategies for the classroom and for the parents to utilize at home. Within these meeting outside resources were discussed like mental health services for the child and family as well as the possibility of a new small therapeutic preschool placement and possible psychological assessments needed to diagnosis with the intention of effective interventions. Parents would sign this document as an indication of acknowledgement and acceptance of their role and the steps that are necessary to support their child. This was to ensure the parental role in promoting their child’s developmental and academic advances not only within the classroom setting but, in their child’s, everyday life. This is seen as preventative care rather than intervention. Frederick Douglass stated that “it is easier to build strong children then to repair broken men.”

2. What did you change with the ECTR grant? How? Why?
Our intention as The YMCA of the East Bay in applying for and accepting the City of Berkeley Trauma grant, is to empower or teaching staff, administration and management with evidenced based knowledge that is trauma informed with the purpose of changing the lens from what is wrong with this child to what has happened to this child. We believe that this knowledge would empower those within these classroom settings to change their individual understanding, mindset and heart set towards the children and families we serve. Therefore, since the onset of Trauma Informed trainings on the foundations of trauma which include the developmental and neurological effects of trauma, Trauma Informed care strategies, self-care strategies and engaging with families an allowed for a systemic anticipated shift to occur. Our teaching staff have exhibited a level of empathy towards the children and families whereas they have purposed themselves to see them differently with the intention to better understand rather than labeling or pathologizing. Another layer to this shift has been their own awareness of their past historical trauma and how close their adverse childhood experiences are to the children and families we serve.

With the heightened awareness and knowledge, they too have begun the work towards healing and restoration within their own lives.

3. What systems, policies, procedures have you put in place in order to better address the mental health and behavioral needs of children?
At the onset of this City of Berkeley Trauma grant, we established a Mental Health consultation procedure whereas the teachers start their own early observations in collaboration with Mental Health Consultants/Specialists observations. They also keep behavioral forms that show patterns of behavior which allows for questions, rather than complaints about a child that they would previously have no tangible behavioral examples of. These forms provide an opportunity to discuss and initiate Trauma Informed Care strategies within the consultation meetings and classrooms.

36 Newly established Mental Health Referral forms were also initiated to be intentional about outside referrals. These are used by the Mental Health Consultants/Specialist during the parent meetings with their approval, to refer children out for mental health services to appropriate organizations who are Trauma trained and informed. Our Mental Health Consultants/Specialists initiate the connection with organizations and the parents to begin the intake process with the purpose of building rapport with the organization as a secondary contact if they have challenges connecting with the parents afterwards. Our Mental Health Consultants/Specialists do a 15-30 day follow up with the parents to inquire about the follow through on acquiring services. If the parents have not followed through, then the Mental Health Consultants/Specialist inquire to see if they can help facilitate any further. If it is decided collaboratively with the parents that a therapeutic preschool setting would be a better fit for their child, then a Mental Health Consultant/Specialist would support them by accompanying them on a tour/visit of the new preschool which initiates the intake process and move.

4. When did you put these in place and why? What are some examples of children/families these have worked for?
Due to the early establishment of the new procedure which encourages early observations and inquiries, we have been able to have several children placed at two therapeutic preschools in the Bay Area being Maya Angelou Academy in Oakland and EBAC ( East Bay Agency for Children) here in Berkeley. This is can been seen as a rarity due to classroom room size begin considerably smaller than our classrooms, they fill up very fast. The collaboration with teachers and parents help consider the wellbeing of the child and not allow for things to be overlooked, ignored or dismissed. We have also had the benefit of working in collaboration with our Inclusion Team to coordinate having Behavioral Aids through JUVO come into our classrooms to work with children who have both behavioral, developmental and trauma concerns. We have been fortunate to witness the effectiveness of this support for current children within our program that would have others wise been unmanageable within the classroom setting. These children’s parents were not able to benefit from mental health services due to many personal and systemic issues, so to provide these services has been a true turn around for these children.

We continue to look forward to the work ahead of us with empowering the parents in our program with the same trainings that we have provided for our staff. This is with the hope that it will not only allow them to have a better understanding of their children but to connect the dots on their own adverse childhood experiences along with historical and cultural trauma that has been in the way of their own healing and the work that needs to be done to shift the trajectory of their family with hope leading the way.

Open-Ended Responses from Staff Survey (May/June 2020)
How have the trauma trainings or Resiliency Circles changed how you work with families/children? • As in apprentice I have learned a lot. The YMCA has taught me a lot in this horrible times of the pandemic the trainings I have taken and how it’s preparing me for any guide the children and families will need as a resource or activities children can do for trauma the way they need to be treated to help them to learn and have a healthy and happy growth.
• Channels your inner thought process
• Help me more to get more knowledge to support to families may needed by using different strategies and referred to our mental health supported as well out of the agency mental health supported. • I can see the difference Corona has impacted families. Some people show how much it effected them and others don't show it. From the training, I get to hear other peoples stories • I didn’t have this experience yet
• I don't work directly with families and children.
• I feel that I understand better how trauma impact children and families • I got a more detailed understanding of how trauma effects children's learning in the classroom environment. • I have a better understanding of my own trauma and how I am impacted by others, ie triggers, etc • I have good relationship with the families

37 • I have realized that some of the trauma that our children and families have suffered is a lot deeper than what we may be able to handle and that we need to make sure that we have resources for our families. • I talked to the family weekly and have zoom meeting with kids and families Give one on one time Read book to the kids do so interactive activities through video and zoom • I understand my own trauma triggers and I can manage them appropriately. • I will more confident more knowledge and have more resource to handle the traumatize kids or families • It has made me more understanding of why some families may react to things different and has given me an opportunity to address these families in a more understanding way. • it really break down the difference between behavior and trauma, and what is really trauma. • It's easier to communicate with families and support them • My perspective on impact of trauma has changed and deepened. I see TIC as ongoing tool when supporting all children, families and staff.
• No change, just reassurance
• Teach me more strategies to use.
• teaches me a lot
• The training have been a good review of past trainings I've attended during my years at HS or trainings from the masters credential program. Some things are refreshers and others have built upon previous concepts. • The trauma add more knowledge to the little experience I have before and I will be confident to help and support a traumatic child.
• The trauma training has changed the way I work with families and children because it gave me a better understanding.
• The Trauma Trainings have helped me to understand the many characteristics of a child's behavior, and of the parent's as well. It also made me realize that it's important for teachers to try to remain calm when dealing with parent's because sometimes parents can be overwhelmed. • to always support parents with their needs. referring them to specialists • Trauma trainings during this time have helped understand more the resiliency circles. Also gave me more tools in order to be able to help and support my families and children. • Understanding a child's behavior in the classroom.
• Using positive strategy that we learn in the training • We can use strategies we get on training

In what ways has your relationship with families changed since you attended the trauma trainings or resiliency circles, if at all?
• At first I was nervous about building relationships with parents, because I didn't know what the outcome would be, and I was worried that parents would not like me. Now I have built relationships with parents, and it's easier for me to communicate with them.
• Better communication with them
• Better communication with them
• Better understand the families because we all have trauma especially at this time • depend on the behavior of the child
• Didn’t have this experience yet
• I am more compassionate towards myself.
• I feel like my relationships with parents have gotten a lot better. • I feel more confident.
• I feel more confident talking to families about strategies to cope with trauma • I have a better understanding of why families sometimes do not accept mental health support. I can also see more clearly generational impact of trauma.

38 • I Having been trained I can now better handle the kids. With the shelter in place, I proactively guide the parents to be patient with the kids. This help the parents to have an easy happy time at home while the shelter in place is active.
• I'm learning to step back when triggers arise and remain calm until I develop a plan of action. • it did not change much but i have a better understand on how parents do not share. • Keep calm and listen to parents and give them positive environment To open up more • More understanding of the children's situation at home. • My relationships have changed because I am more knowledgeable of trauma and it gives me the tools to better help the families.
• My relationships with families has not changed science the trauma training. • My relationships with my parents are positive.
• n/a for now. I will hear and listen to their problems and try to give them suggestions on what to do • Offering activities to work with kids.
• parents are willing to help child and their needs
• still same
• The families and I have been more connected, even when this has happened remotely. • The relationships are still good but a little strained by the COVID - 19. • The training are reminder to remember that experienced shape a person. Not to take a response personally because words, actions, expression can be triggering. Remember to remain calm. • Understanding more about emotions personal things that can trigger them. Feelings can burst for any reason because trauma can live within them at all times. We must be strong to thrive forward and keep the families healthy and strong.

Additional thoughts and comments
• Am glad to do the trauma trainings on the 18th May and the 28th of May 2020 • I am very grateful with the organization because they have always provided the tools and trainings to grow professionally and improve my practices. THANK YOU for this opportunity! • I answered questions personally, what I'm experiencing in my own household in this time. As I have not been present in a classroom since 3/16/2020
• I do not have additional thoughts, comments and responses. • Thank you for provide us those training to reinforce my knowledge and get a new information or resources to support the families as well to us.
• Trauma is harmful and difficult. Only the strong survive.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Contract No. 32200185 Amendment: Sonya Dublin Consulting to Provide Evaluation Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting to provide evaluation services, and any subsequent amendments or extensions, to add $93,600 and bring the contract total to an amount not to exceed $109,200 and extending the end date from June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the external evaluator is available through Local Lead Agency funding through the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP). The not to exceed amount of the contract is currently $15,600.00 and the amendment will increase the limit by $93,600 (ERMA GL 157-51-506-559-2053-000-451-612990) for a total not to exceed amount of $109,200. The contract end date will be extended to June 30, 2025.

ERMA GL Amount
157-51-506-559-2053-000-451-612990 $93,600.00
Total $93,600.00

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley receives funding from the California Tobacco Program as a Local Lead Agency and is required to contract with an external evaluator as part of the program’s contract deliverables.

BACKGROUND
As a Local Lead Agency receiving funding from the California Tobacco Program, the City of Berkeley is required to contract with an external evaluator that is responsible for designing the evaluation plan and providing consultation on the entire scope of work; developing data collection instruments, protocols, and methodology; analyzing data; and preparing evaluation reports. The external evaluator coordinates with the Tobacco Control Program Director, and will execute a variety of evaluation-related tasks.

Expenditure Contract: Sonya Dublin Consulting CONSENT CALENDAR July 26, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Execution of this contract will allow the City of Berkeley’s Tobacco Prevention Program to comply with the California Tobacco Control Program’s external evaluator requirement as a Local Lead Agency awardee.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. Failure to contract with an external evaluator would render the City of Berkeley’s Tobacco Prevention Program unable to complete program deliverables and would place the City of Berkeley out of compliance with its contract with the California Tobacco Control Program.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Public Health Division Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5212 Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32200185 AMENDMENT: SONYA DUBLIN CONSULTING TO

PROVIDE EVALUATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Health, Housing & Community Services Department’s Public Health Division Tobacco Prevention Program, as a State funded LLA grantee, fosters collaboration and engagement in grassroots community mobilization activities to support social norm change and education to reduce tobacco use and address the tobacco industry strategies through a comprehensive tobacco control plan; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2022, Contract 32200185 was previously executed; and WHEREAS, Local Lead Agency funding is available through the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) for FY23-FY25 in budget code 157-51-506-559-2053-000-451- 612990 ($109,200 total).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200185, and any subsequent amendments or extensions with Sonya Dublin Consulting to provide external evaluation services for the Health, Housing & Community Services Department’s Public Health Division Tobacco Prevention Program, adding $93,600 for a total amount not to exceed $109,200, and extending the contract through June 30, 2025. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Department
Subject: Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to receive funds and execute any agreements and amendments resulting from the renewal of the following grants:

1. Two Shelter Plus Care grants from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): a) $3,949,021 for Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023; b) $2,327,914 for COACH Project (COACH) for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.

2. One grant from HUD administered through the County of Alameda for $881,045 to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled from March 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Each of the Shelter Plus Care grants and the grant from Alameda County provides funds for rental subsidies from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These grants serve homeless and disabled individuals and families in Berkeley, and must be renewed on an annual basis. These grants fund the rental subsidies for these units while city staff and community agency partners provide the supportive services that fulfills the 25% in-kind service match required for these grants.

HUD allows up to 7% of each grant to be used to administer the rental subsidies which supports the Health, Housing and Community Service Department’s grant-related administrative activities. (For the four HUD grants budget codes 347-51-504-530/535 various; funds to be deposited in revenue accounts 805-7906-331-1023 and 6064 (FUND$) and 347-51-504-535-0000-000-000-431110 (ERMA). For the contract with Alameda County, budget codes 348-51-504-530-535-various and funds to be deposited in revenue accounts 806-7906-331-1023 and 6064 (FUND$) and 348-51-504-535-0000- 000-000-431110 (ERMA).

Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants CONSENT CALENDAR July 26, 2022

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Based on a national competition, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and the County of Alameda awarded funding to the City of Berkeley to renew three Shelter Plus Care grants that provide rental assistance to a minimum of 220 households. The City’s Shelter Plus Care Program provides federal rental subsidies that are matched by locally provided services to transition formerly homeless, disabled individuals and families into permanent, supportive housing. These grants currently provide tenant-based rental subsidies for approximately 300 households to rent from private property owners in Berkeley, Albany, Alameda, Oakland, and Emeryville. The number of households currently leased up is at 136% of the 220 number as required by HUD due to careful grant management.

Each of the participants in the program receives case management and other supportive services provided by one or more of the following agencies: Bay Area Community Services (BACS), Berkeley Food and Housing Project (BFHP); City of Berkeley Mental Health Division (BMH); City of Berkeley Aging Services Division (Aging); Bonita House, Inc.(Bonita); Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS); East Bay AIDS Center (EBAC); Lifelong Medical Care (LLMC); and the Women’s Daytime Drop-In Center (WDDC).

BACKGROUND
Since 1995, the City of Berkeley Shelter Plus Care Program has been an important component of the continuum of housing available to disabled homeless families and individuals. The Shelter Plus Care Program is funded by HUD and the County of Alameda to provide housing subsidies for people who are homeless with a disability.

The program combines a rental subsidy with ongoing supportive services to assist chronically homeless individuals and families to obtain and maintain housing.

The Berkeley Shelter Plus Care Program is a partnership between the Health, Housing and Community Services Department and seven community agencies. The Health, Housing and Community Services Department provides operational and programmatic oversight, and inspects rental units to ensure that each unit meets federal housing quality standards and makes monthly rental subsidy payments to property owners. The community agencies along with the Department’s Aging Services and Mental Health Divisions provide ongoing case management and support to participants in the program.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley Shelter Plus Care Program successfully provides stable housing and ongoing services to some of the City’s most vulnerable residents. Authorizing the acceptance of the three Shelter Plus Care renewal grants, will assure that 300

Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants CONSENT CALENDAR July 26, 2022

homeless and disabled individuals and families in Berkeley continue to benefit from receiving ongoing rental assistance and the supportive services necessary to retain stable housing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff did not identify any alternative actions that would be consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan goals to “create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members” and “champion and demonstrate social and racial equity”.

CONTACT PERSON
Paul Chang, Community Services Specialist III HHCS, (510) 981-5446 Attachment:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

SHELTER PLUS CARE PROGRAM RENEWAL GRANTS
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the County of Alameda have awarded the City of Berkeley Health, Housing & Community Services Department the following five Shelter Plus Care grants: 1) a) $3,949,021 for Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023; b) $2,327,914 for COACH Project (COACH) for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022; and 2) One grant from the County of Alameda for $881,045 to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled from March 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023; and WHEREAS, the combined total for the three grants is an estimated $7,157,980 to provide direct rental assistance, and of this amount approximately 7% is available to support the Health, Housing and Community Service Department’s grant-related administrative activities (For the four HUD grants budget codes 347-51-504-530/535 various; funds to be deposited in revenue accounts 805-7906-331-1023 and 6064 (FUND$) and 347-51- 504-535-0000-000-000-431110 (ERMA). For the contract with Alameda County, budget codes 348-51-504-530-535-various and funds to be deposited in revenue accounts 806- 7906-331-1023 and 6064 (FUND$) and 348-51-504-535-0000-000-000-431110 (ERMA); and
WHEREAS, these Shelter Plus Care grants are an annual renewal of an existing program that provides rental subsidies and ongoing support services for more than 300 homeless and disabled individuals and families in Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the rent subsidies provided through the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program are matched by services provided by the City’s Mental Health Division and Aging Services Division and seven community-based agencies that assist formerly homeless, disabled individuals and families to retain stable housing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to receive funds and execute any agreements and amendments resulting from the three grants awarded from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the County of Alameda for the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program as follows: 1) Two Shelter Plus Care grants from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): a) $3,949,021 for Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023; b) $2,327,914 for COACH Project (COACH) for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022; and 2) One grant from HUD administered through the County of Alameda for $881,045 to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled from March 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023. A signed copy of said documents, agreements and any amendments will be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 26, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Contract Amendments: Mental Health Services Act Community Services and Supports, and Prevention and Early Intervention

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt ten Resolutions authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute amendments for the following contracts that are funded through Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Community Services and Supports (CSS) and Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI); increasing the contract amounts as outlined below; totaling $1,571,966 and extending the contracts through June 30, 2023:

1. Increasing CSS Contract No. 100042-1 with Lakehurst Hall by $36,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $185,500 for Room Rental Fees for Berkeley Mental Health clients;

2. Increasing CSS Contract No. 108800-1 with Bay Area Hearing Voices Network by $46,941 for a total contract amount not to exceed $184,855 for hearing voices support groups;

3. Increasing CSS Contract No. 31900132 with Building Opportunities for Self- Sufficiency by $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $400,000 for representative payee services;

4. Increasing CSS Contract No. 32200130 with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services by $491,933 for a total contract amount not to exceed $983,866 for Wellness Center operations;

5. Increasing CSS and PEI Contract No. 32000094 with Youth Spirit Artworks by $100,000 for Transition Age Youth case management and linkage services, and $32,046 for trauma support services. This amendment also includes $78,000 for Tiny House Village services, which is non-MHSA funding, for a total contract amount not to exceed $737,092;

Contract Amendments: Mental Health Services Act CONSENT CALENDAR Community Services and Supports, and Prevention and Early Intervention July 26, 2022

6. Increasing PEI Contract No. 32000240 with Berkeley Unified School District by $355,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,347,778 for services to support Berkeley students;

7. Increasing PEI Contract No. 088999-1 with Center for Independent Living by $32,046 for a total contract amount not to exceed $352,722 for services to support Older Adults;

8. Increasing PEI Contract No. 052129-1 with Pacific Center for Human Growth by $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $515,150 for services to support the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Agender, Plus (LGBTQIA+) population;

9. Increasing PEI Contract No. 32200146 with OnTrack Program Resources by $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $175,000 for services to support African Americans; and

10.Increasing PEI Contract No. 3200111 with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant by $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $200,000 for services to support the Latinx/Latina/Latino population.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding from MHSA revenue received from the State of California is available in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget in the following ERMA GL Accounts: Community Services and Supports programs $36,000 in 315-51-503-521-2006-000-451-636110, Community Services and Supports programs $738,874 in 315-51-503-526-2016-000-451-636110, and Prevention and Early Intervention programs $719,092 in 315-51-503-526-2016- 000-451-636110. In addition, funding in the amount of $78,000 for Tiny House Village housing services is available in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget in ERMA GL Code 011-51- 503-523-5002-000-451-636110.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The table below shows the City’s current commitment of MHSA funds for CSS and PEI.

MHSA Funding
Component Vendor Funds Added with this
Recommendation
New Contract
Total
CSS Lakehurst Hall $36,000 $185,500
CSS Bay Area Hearing
Voices Network
$46,941 $184,855
CSS Building Opportunities
for Self-Sufficiency
$100,000 $400,000

Contract Amendments: Mental Health Services Act CONSENT CALENDAR Community Services and Supports, and Prevention and Early Intervention July 26, 2022

CSS Alameda County
Behavioral Healthcare
Services
$491,933 $983,866
CSS
PEI
Non-MHSA Funds:

Measure P
Youth Spirit Artworks $100,000
$36,000
$78,000
$737,092
PEI Berkeley Unified
School District
$355,000 $1,347,778
PEI Center for
Independent Living
$32,046 $352,722
PEI Pacific Center for
Human Growth
$100,000 $515,150
PEI ONTRACK Program
Resources Inc.
$100,000 $175,000
PEI East Bay Sanctuary
Covenant
$100,000 $200,000
The MHSA Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (FY23) Annual Update is the local plan that, informed by area stakeholders, details the uses of MHSA funds. This Annual Update, which is on the City Council Agenda this evening for approval, includes funding to continue the CSS and PEI programs and services outlined above.

Development of the FY23 Annual Update included conducting community program planning, writing a draft plan, providing a 30-day public review period from May 26 through June 23, 2022, and conducting a public hearing on June 23, 2022 at the Mental Health Commission. At the close of the public hearing the Mental Health Commission made the motion:

M/S/C (Fine, Jones) Recommend that the City Council approve this funding and submit the MHSA Plan to the State.

Ayes: Fine, Jones, Opton, Pritchett Noes: None; Abstentions: None; Absent: Escarcega; Taplin.

BACKGROUND
Since the passage of Proposition 63 in 2004, the Health, Housing and Community Services Department, Mental Health Division, has received annual MHSA funding which is utilized to expand and transform the mental health service delivery system to better meet the needs of underserved and inappropriately served communities, among others.

This initiative has provided new opportunities for the Mental Health Division to further develop and expand its system of care, adding new programs to the Division’s own program and utilizing non-profit providers in the planning and delivery of comprehensive

Contract Amendments: Mental Health Services Act CONSENT CALENDAR Community Services and Supports, and Prevention and Early Intervention July 26, 2022

mental health services. The contracts this report seeks to extend advance this goal and provide improved coordination between the City and its partner system of care agencies. The City Council has previously amended these contracts.

Community Services and Supports (CSS): A portion of MHSA Community Services and Supports (CSS) funds are allocated to community-based organizations to provide case management services for Transition Age Youth; housing supports; Hearing Voices support groups; and to support a Wellness Center, operated in collaboration with Alameda County.

Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI): Some of the MHSA Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) funds have been utilized to provide services and supports for students in the Berkeley Unified School District, and for support services for individuals who are underserved or inappropriately served in the mental health system including the following populations: African Americans; Latinx; Older Adults; Transition Age Youth; and Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, and Agender (LGBTQIA) individuals.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Each of the programs funded by these contracts were developed as a result of feedback from stakeholders and went through a lengthy community input process before being presented to City Council as part of the MHSA Plan Annual Update. All current vendors are performing at an effective level under their current contracts, and are trusted partners in meeting community health needs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff did not identify an alternative action that would be consistent with the adopted MHSA Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plans.

CONTACT PERSON
Karen Klatt, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, (510) 981-7644 Conor Murphy, Assistant Management Analyst, HHCS, (510) 981-7611 Attachments:
1: Resolution – Contract No. 100042-1 Amendment: Lakehurst Hall 2: Resolution – Contract No. 108800-1 Amendment: Bay Area Hearing Voices Network 3: Resolution – Contract No. 31900132 Amendment: Building Opportunities for Self- Sufficiency

Contract Amendments: Mental Health Services Act CONSENT CALENDAR Community Services and Supports, and Prevention and Early Intervention July 26, 2022

4: Resolution – Contract No. 32200130 Amendment: Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services
5: Resolution – Contract No. 32000094 Amendment: Youth Spirit Artworks 6: Resolution – Contract No. 32000240 Amendment: Berkeley Unified School District

7. Resolution – Contract No. 088999-1 Amendment: Center for Independent Living

8. Resolution – Contract No. 052129-1 Amendment: Pacific Center for Human Growth

9. Resolution – Contract No. 32200111 Amendment: OnTrack Program Resources, Inc.

10. Resolution – Contract No. 32200146 Amendment: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 100042-1 AMENDMENT: LAKEHURST HALL, INC FOR

TEMPORARY HOUSING SUBSIDIES
WHEREAS, the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services, Mental Health Division is allocated annual funding under the State Mental Health Services Act for the provision of comprehensive mental health services; and WHEREAS, the Mental Health Division works cooperatively and in partnership with community-based agencies in the provision of such mental health services; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2014 the City Manager authorized Contract No. 100042-1 with Lakehurst Hall, Inc. for the provision of temporary housing in the amount not to exceed $30,000; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2015 the City Manager authorized an amendment to Contract No. 100042-1 with Lakehurst Hall, Inc. to increase the amount by $19,500 for a total contract amount not to exceed $49,500; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017 by Resolution No. 67,801-N.S. City Council authorized the City Manager to approve amending Contract No. 100042-1 with Lakehurst Hall, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $149,500; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget code 315-51-503-521- 2006-000-451-636110 in the MHSA fund received from the State of California.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 100042-1 with Lakehurst Hall, Inc. for temporary housing subsidy funds increasing the contract by $36,000 for a new total not to exceed amount of $185,500, and extending the contract through June 20, 2023. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 108800-1 AMENDMENT: BAY AREA HEARING VOICES NETWORK

FOR HEARING VOICES SUPPORT GROUPS
WHEREAS, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds are allocated to mental health jurisdictions across the state for the purposes of transforming the mental health system into one that is consumer and family driven, culturally competent, wellness and recovery oriented, includes community collaboration, and implements integrated services; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,033-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the MHSA Plan FY2019-2020 Annual Update; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,193-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to amend Contract No. 108800-1 for an expenditure limit not to exceed $68,442; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,493-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to amend Contract No. 108800-1 for an expenditure limit not to exceed $103,178; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021 by Resolution No. 70,011-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to amend Contract No. 108800-1 for an expenditure limit not to exceed $137,914; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $46,941 are available in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget in the MHSA ERMA GL Code 315-51-503-526-2017-000-451-612990.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 108800-1 with the Bay Area Hearing Voices Network for Hearing Voices Support Groups through June 30, 2023 increasing the contract by $46,941 for a new total amount not to exceed $184,855. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900132 AMENDMENT: BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-

SUFFICIENCY FOR REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE SERVICES
WHEREAS, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds are allocated to mental health jurisdictions across the state for the purposes of transforming the mental health system into one that is consumer and family driven, culturally competent, wellness and recovery oriented, includes community collaboration, and implements integrated services; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015 by Resolution No. 67,026-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the MHSA Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017 Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan; and
WHEREAS, within the City Council approved MHSA Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017 Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan was the goal of contracting with a community based organization to provide Representative Payee Services; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2018 City Council approved the Finance Department’s request to issue a Request for Proposals for Representative Payee Services; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley’s Mental Health Division issued a Request for Proposals for Representative Payee Services, and selected Building Opportunities for Self- Sufficiency as the vendor; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019 by Resolution No. 68,768-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute contract No. 31900132 with Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency for Representative Payee services; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,249-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend contract No. 31900132; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,470-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend contract No. 31900132; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021 by Resolution No. 70,036-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend contract No. 31900132; and WHEREAS, Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency has been the vendor for Representative Payee services for the City of Berkeley since March 1, 2019, and has acted in a satisfactory capacity;
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget in ERMA GL Code 315- 51-503-526-2017-000-451-636110.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No.

31900132 with Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency for Representative Payee services through June 30, 2023 increasing the contract by $100,000 for a new total amount not to exceed $400,000. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY

BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES FOR WELLNESS CENTER

OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, as part of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), the State of California designated a process for all mental health jurisdictions for expenditures from Community Services and Supports (CSS); and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2015, via Resolution No. 67,228-N.S., City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services to implement, manage, and evaluate a Mental Health Wellness Center (Wellness Center); and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2019, via Resolution No. 68,749-N.S. City Council approved funding the construction of the Wellness Center located in Berkeley in partnership with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020 via Resolution No. 69,549-N.S. City Council approved funding operational costs of the Wellness Center located in Berkeley in partnership with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021 via Resolution No. 70,038-N.S. City Council approved funding operational costs of the Wellness Center located in Berkeley in partnership with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding provides the mechanism whereby the City of Berkeley Mental Health Services Act CSS funds can be transferred to the lead agency, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services , to be utilized for the operational costs of the Mental Health Wellness Center; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2023 budget code 315-51-503-525-
2020-000-451-636110 in the MHSA fund received from the State of California.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200130 with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services through June 30, 2023 increasing the contract by $491,933 for a new total not to exceed amount of $983,866 to fund the operational costs of a Mental Health Wellness Center (Wellness Center) located in the City of Berkeley.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32000094 AMENDMENT: YOUTH SPIRIT ARTWORKS FOR

TRANSITION AGE YOUTH CASE MANAGEMENT AND LINKAGE SERVICES AND

TINY HOUSE CASE MANAGEMENT
WHEREAS, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds are allocated to mental health jurisdictions across the state for the purposes of transforming the mental health system into one that is consumer and family driven, culturally competent, wellness and recovery oriented, includes community collaboration, and implements integrated services; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,033-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the MHSA Plan FY2019-2020 Annual Update; and WHEREAS, within the City Council approved MHSA Plan FY2019-2020 Annual Update was an allocation of $100,000 for contracted Transition Age Youth (TAY) Case Management and Linkage Services; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,194-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve amending Contract No. 32000094 through June 30, 2020 in an amount not to exceed $100,000; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,436-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve amending Contract No. 32000094 through June 30, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $217,000; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020 by Resolution No. 69,511-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve amending Contract No. 32000094 through June 30, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $317,000; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021 by Resolution No. 70,121-N.S., City Council authorized the City Manager to approve amending Contract No. 32000094 through June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $527,046; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the current budget year from the Mental Health Services Act ($100,000 from ERMA GL Code 315-51-503-526-2017-000-451-636110 and $32,046 from ERMA GL Code 315-51-503-526-2016-000-451-636110) and Measure P ($78,000 from ERMA GL Code 011-51-503-523-5002-000-451-636110).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000094 with Youth Spirit Artworks for Transition Age Youth case management and linkage services and Tiny House case management increasing the contract by $210,046 for a new total not to exceed amount of $737,092, and extending the contract through June 20, 2023. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32000240 AMENDMENT: BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (BUSD) FOR MENTAL HEALTH MHSA-FUNDED PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Health, Housing and Community Services, Mental Health Division, currently receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Funds on an annual basis to improve early access to services and programs; including the reduction of stigma and discrimination; and for strategies to prevent mental illness from becoming severe and disabling; and WHEREAS, the Mental Health Division works in partnership with community-based agencies and the Berkeley Unified School District in the provision of such services and supports; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019 via Resolution No. 69,168-N.S., City Council approved entering into a contract with BUSD to fund the Mental Health Peer Education and Supports Project, the Dynamic Mindfulness Program, the Supportive Schools Program, and the African American Success Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021 via Resolution No. 69,836-N.S., City Council approved amending Contract No. 32000240; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022 via Resolution No. 70,221-N.S., City Council approved amending Contract No. 32000240; and
WHEREAS, community input and stakeholder feedback has determined a need for the programs being funded; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) has been a trusted partner in the implementation of a variety of programs in collaboration with the City; and WHEREAS, funding for this contract has been included in the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget and are available in ERMA GL Account 315-51-503-526-2016-000-451-636110.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000240 with the Berkeley Unified School District for MHSA-funded programs through June 30, 2023 increasing the contract by $355,000 for a new total not to exceed amount of $1,347,778. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.