An Act Relating to: a pilot school-centered mental health program. (FE)
Summary
AB260 would create a two-school pilot program for school-centered mental health services during the 2025-27 biennium. The Department of Health Services would be required each fiscal year to distribute funding, in an amount set by the DHS secretary, to a provider operating the program at two schools in Wisconsin: one in a rural school district and one in a suburban or urban school district. The provider would use the funds to support full-time therapist positions, family coach positions, and any other staff needed to run the program.
The bill defines a school-centered mental health program as one that serves at-risk pupils and families at school, at home, and in the community; provides year-round services; offers evidence-based individual or family therapy; includes family coaching tied to therapeutic goals; supports connections to community health services and primary care; and uses classroom observations and school staff collaboration to develop pupil-specific behavior interventions. It also requires the program to measure and report its effects on students and families, including changes in social determinants of health, mental health symptoms, academic performance, and social-emotional growth.
Impact
AB260 would not broadly rewrite existing education or mental health statutes, but it would create a new nonstatutory pilot initiative administered by DHS and funded through state appropriations in the 2025-27 biennium. It would direct DHS to select and fund a provider for two participating schools, require school cooperation for surveys and data sharing, and impose reporting obligations on the provider and DHS. The bill would therefore affect DHS program administration, school participation in a state-funded mental health pilot, and the collection and transmission of pupil-related outcome data to the legislature.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced with a policy focus on expanding access to school-based mental health supports, especially for at-risk students and families, and its structure suggests a generally supportive, pilot-oriented approach rather than a sweeping mandate. However, there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. As a result, the available record shows legislative interest in the concept but no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader consensus or opposition.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to have involved state spending, DHS discretion in setting the funding amount, the use of pupil and family data for reporting, and the feasibility of requiring schools to facilitate surveys and provide data. Another possible issue is the bill’s limited scope: it would fund only two schools, one rural and one suburban or urban, which may have raised questions about equity, selection criteria, and whether a pilot program would be sufficient to justify statewide expansion. No specific objections are documented in the provided transcripts or votes.