This bill enacts the School-based Behavioral Health Pilot Program within the Department of Health and Human Services to support implementation of coordinated school mental health services and a multi-tiered system of supports through partnerships with LEAs, RESAs, and designated implementation partners. It defines new statutory terms, sets application and contractual requirements for participating education agencies and implementation partners, and amends parental notification and consent rules.
Why it matters: the measure packages training, telehealth coordination, workforce development, and data collection into a single pilot meant to test statewide tools and practices. The program is time-limited and requires a formal evaluation to inform whether to expand the model into existing grant programs and statewide policy, potentially reshaping how Utah delivers behavioral health services in schools.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Department of Health and Human Services will competitively solicit LEAs/RESAs and implementation partners, enter into contracts or MOUs, and provide technical assistance and statewide implementation support tied to training, workforce development, telehealth coordination, and evaluation. Program funds are awarded subject to legislative appropriations and are distinct from the separate contract for statewide rollout support.
Who It Affects
Local education agencies and regional education service agencies that apply and contract with an implementation partner; public institutions of higher education or other state-funded entities serving as implementation partners; local mental health authorities, community coalitions, and families involved in planning and delivery; and Medicaid and school-based health initiatives that must coordinate operations.
Why It Matters
The pilot creates a structured pathway to embed prevention, screening, group and individual supports, and psychiatric consultation into schools while locking in parental-consent and notification mechanics. If the evaluation finds consistent standards and workable operational models, the state intends to export those practices into existing grant programs — changing funding and service-delivery expectations for districts and community partners.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute builds a single program framework for school-based behavioral health anchored by a multi-tiered system of supports. The bill enumerates what belongs in each tier — from schoolwide prevention and wellbeing surveys through group-based prevention activities, short-term one-to-one services, case management, and psychiatric consultation — and ties those tiers to explicit partnerships with parents, schools, local mental health authorities, community coalitions, and health care providers.
The definition section also clarifies what counts as group-based services and telehealth for program purposes.
Districts and RESAs must apply to participate and, if selected, contract with an awarded implementation partner. Applications must describe how the district will document and honor parental consent, implement statewide mental health screening and referral protocols, participate in data collection and reporting, and meet baseline training requirements set by the state board.
The law preserves district discretion to opt into screening programs while making participation prerequisites for pilot involvement.Implementation partners receive program funds to provide technical assistance, workforce development, telehealth coordination, training, and evaluation support to participating LEAs/RESAs. The bill draws clear lines around the partner role: they coordinate and deliver supports but may not establish policy, adopt rules, determine eligibility, compel participation, override parental consent, or unilaterally assign students.
All partner activity is under DHHS oversight and subject to contract terms addressing data sharing, privacy, evaluation metrics, and continuous improvement.To inform future policy, the department must compare the pilot's standards, infrastructure, and outcomes with an existing school-based health grant program and identify statutory, regulatory, or programmatic gaps that limit statewide consistency or equitable access. The statute also creates reporting expectations (student access, workforce outcomes, geographic reach, wait times, collaboration and family engagement metrics) so the Legislature and relevant committees can see what scales and what does not.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires informed written parental consent before the first session of any restricted service and, unless a parent opts out of notifications, one-business-day notice after each restricted-service session describing that the service occurred and its topic.
An implementation partner may not set policy, adopt or enforce rules, determine who is eligible, require participation, override parental consent, or directly assign students to services — all program control remains with DHHS and the participating LEA/RESA.
Group-based mental health services must be delivered only where every student present has documented parental consent; such group services cannot occur in a general classroom during instructional time unless all present have consent.
DHHS must evaluate the pilot against the grant program in Section 53F-2-415 and submit findings and recommendations to the Health and Human Services Interim Committee (including gaps that limit statewide consistency) to inform possible broader application of the pilot's practices.
Contracts/MOUs between DHHS and implementation partners must specify roles, data-sharing and privacy protections, reporting expectations, training and technical assistance, workforce development and retention support, telehealth coordination, evaluation metrics, and continuous improvement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope for services and partners
This subsection defines core terms the program will use operationally: group-based mental health services, implementation partner, multi-tiered system of support, participating LEA/RESA, telehealth, and RESA. The tier definitions are granular — listing specific activities and linkages such as universal wellbeing surveys, targeted screenings, telehealth delivery, case management, and psychiatric consultation — which sets a clear baseline for what contracts and training must cover.
Program goals and service priorities
The statute frames the program around technical assistance, training, and enhancement of prevention, intervention, and recovery services rather than direct long-term clinical treatment. That focus steers funds toward building local capacity (training, workforce pipelines, telehealth infrastructure) and creating referral pathways rather than substituting for community behavioral health providers.
DHHS responsibilities, contracting, and coordination
DHHS must solicit proposals from LEAs/RESAs and implementation partners, competitively award program funds subject to appropriation, and separately contract for statewide implementation support (training, TA, workforce development, evaluation). The department is also charged with coordinating with Medicaid and other school-health initiatives to avoid duplication and aligning screening, referral, and reporting practices. Required contract elements—data-sharing safeguards, evaluation metrics, telehealth coordination, and continuous improvement—are spelled out to create enforceable expectations.
Participation requirements for LEAs and RESAs
To join the pilot, an LEA/RESA must file an application describing partnerships with local mental health authorities and community coalitions, document parental consent procedures for individual and group services, outline metrics to measure effectiveness, contract with an awarded implementation partner, implement statewide screening per existing statute, follow statewide referral protocols, and comply with data-collection and baseline training requirements. Notably, the section preserves an LEA’s ability to choose whether to opt into the broader screening program.
Roles, allowable uses of funds, and limits on implementation partners
Implementation partners are required to contract with participating LEAs/RESAs and provide TA, training, workforce development support, telehealth coordination, and evaluation. The provision lists eligible uses for funds (system implementation, professional training, telehealth supports, compliance activities) but also imposes explicit prohibitions: partners may not create policy, adopt rules, determine eligibility, mandate participation, override consent, or assign students without LEA referral. This lines up accountability with the state and local school authorities.
Sunset and repeal timing
The bill inserts the new program into the state’s schedule of repeals. That administrative action creates a finite window for the pilot and forces an evaluation/decision point before any permanent expansion. Practically, the sunset requires stakeholders to document outcomes and sustainability prospects within the statutory timeline.
Parental consent, notification, and emergency exceptions
The amendment tightens informed parental-consent procedures: authorized personnel must obtain prior written consent via a standard form and provide post-session notifications unless a parent opts out. The section preserves exceptions for IEP/504 plans and emergencies where delay would pose immediate danger, and clarifies that SafeUT access is excluded from these consent rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students in participating districts — receive expanded local access to layered prevention and short-term clinical supports, reduced travel/wait times through school-based and telehealth options, and clearer referral pathways to community care.
- Parents and caregivers — gain defined consent and notification rules, opportunities for meaningful engagement in planning, and clearer information on what services their children receive and why.
- Participating LEAs and RESAs — receive training, technical assistance, and workforce development supports that can build local capacity and reduce reliance on external crisis services.
- Implementation partners (public universities and state-funded entities) — obtain competitive program funding and a formal role coordinating statewide rollout, evaluation, and workforce pipeline activities.
- Rural and underserved communities — targeted evaluation metrics and coordination requirements aim to measure and extend geographic reach and reduce disparities in access.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health and Human Services — inherits program administration, contracting, oversight, evaluation, and coordination responsibilities that require staff time and systems, likely without explicit dedicated funding in this bill.
- Participating LEAs/RESAs — must allocate staff for application, consent tracking, screening, referral protocols, training completion, and data reporting, which can be resource intensive for smaller districts.
- Implementation partners — must deliver TA, training, workforce support, telehealth coordination, data reporting, and evaluation under contract terms, creating administrative and operational costs tied to contract compliance.
- Local community providers and mental health authorities — will need to coordinate intake and referral workflows and accommodate new referral patterns, which can strain capacity if demand increases.
- State budget/appropriators — the program’s competitive awards and separate statewide support contract are subject to appropriation, creating a fiscal choice for future legislatures about scaling or sustaining successful elements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding rapid, school-based access to behavioral health supports (which argues for broad screening, group services, and streamlined pathways) and protecting parental authority and student privacy (which requires prior consent, detailed notification, and limits on who can assign services); the statute attempts to protect both, but doing so may restrict reach or require substantial new capacity to achieve both goals simultaneously.
The bill walks a narrow operational tightrope: it expands school-based access while insulating parental authority through strict consent and notification rules. That architecture reduces the risk of unwanted interventions, but it may blunt the pilot’s ability to reach at-risk students who will not receive or whose families will not return consent forms.
Implementation success therefore depends on robust family engagement strategies that are resourced and measured.
Coordination and evaluation are central but complicated. The statute requires DHHS to compare this pilot to an existing grant program and to coordinate with Medicaid and other initiatives, yet it leaves many coordination mechanics to contracts and MOUs.
Absent clear funding for the department’s expanded administrative role and for local SEAs to meet data and training obligations, the pilot risks privileging districts that already have capacity, producing nonrepresentative outcomes. Data-sharing expectations are explicit in contract terms, but privacy protections will need precise operational rules to handle sensitive behavioral health information across education and health systems.
Finally, workforce limitations and sustainability loom large. The law funds workforce development and gap-filling telehealth coordination, but the bill does not create permanent reimbursement streams for ongoing clinical services.
If the pilot demonstrates demand without accompanying long-term funding mechanisms, districts and partners will confront difficult choices about sustaining services post-pilot or shifting costs to local budgets and community providers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.