System of Care Local Integration Convenings

October 27, 2026 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

Register for the October 27 Convening 

• April 6th System of Care Local Integration Convenings Kickoff Meeting Agenda 
• I. Welcome & Introduction
  II. Opening Remarks
  David Swanson Hollinger, Chief Deputy Director, California Department of Social Services
  Michelle Baass, Director, Department of Health Care Services; Pete Cervinka, Director, Department of Developmental Services
  Judge Katherine Lucero, Director, Office of Youth and Community Restoration
  Deborah Avalos, Education Administrator, California Department of Education
  III. Purpose
  Sara Rogers, System of Care Branch Chief, California Department of Social Services
  IV. System of Care Presenters
  Violeta Mora, FYSCP Program Specialist & Michelle Bailow, FYSCP Project Specialist, San Diego County Office of Education
  Shahrukh Chishty, Managed Care Plan Child Welfare Liaison
  Tracy McKnight, System of Care Coordinator, Central Valley Regional Center; Claudia Chavez, Director of Social Services, Pala Band of Mission Indians
  Joe Netemeyer, Assistant Chief, Placer County Probation
  Monica Connor and Jean Reyes, Kings County's Child Welfare Director and Senior Manager
  V. Local Perspectives
  VI. System of Care Coordination Tool Demo
  Laura Krzywicki, Program Director, Child and Family Policy Institute of California
  Peter Guan, Program Manager, Child and Family Policy Institute of California
  Rachel Swaykos, Program Manager, Child and Family Policy Institute of California
  VII. Closing Remarks
   
• Mateo’s Narrative: What System of Care Makes Possible
• Meet Mateo, a 10-year-old whose life began changing, and he needed support. 
  
  Over several months, Mateo’s teacher noticed something had changed. His behavior was escalating (e.g., leaving class without permission, knocking over desks, reacting intensely to transitions, and becoming aggressive with peers).
  
  At first, it looked like defiance. But the school team began to see something deeper:
  • Sensory overwhelm
  • Difficulty reading social cues
  • Extreme reactions to perceived rejection
  • Hypervigilance
  
  They initiated an IEP evaluation. They began looking at developmental needs. But as behaviors escalated, another worry surfaced:
  If this continues, will law enforcement get called?
  Is this how a 10-year-old ends up in juvenile probation?
  
  The school was not just managing behaviors that were concerning; they were also trying to prevent justice involvement. During IEP conversations, concerns about supervision and safety at home emerged. A mandated report was filed.
  
  And just like that, multiple systems were activated.
  • Child Welfare investigated
  • Mateo entered care
  • After several disrupted placements, he was placed in an STRTP
  
  Meanwhile:
  • He received a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • He became eligible for Regional Center services
  • Behavioral health was involved
  • He continued under an IEP
  • His Tribe was notified after Indian ancestry was identified
  
  By age 10, Mateo was a youth being served by multiple systems. But here’s where the complexity deepens.
  
  At STRTP, clinicians began noticing something the initial diagnosis hadn’t fully captured.
  
  Yes, there were developmental differences. But there were also:
  • Nightmares
  • Hypervigilance
  • Emotional reactions that looked less like rigidity and more like trauma
  
  The question became:
  Are we seeing Autism?
  Or trauma layered onto developmental differences?
  Or both?
  
  Each system was acting in good faith:
  • STRTP managed behaviors
  • Regional Center provided developmental supports
  • Behavioral health offered therapy
  • Education adjusted the IEP
  • Child welfare extended placement because the
  
  QI assessment identified that “he needs this level of care.” And yet, instability continued.
  
  Without coordination, Mateo could easily remain in congregate care longer than necessary. Then the Child and Family Team was convened, not as a formality, but as the core infrastructure of how we team, centering Mateo’s needs and the family’s voice/choice.
  
  At the table:
  • Mateo
  • His parents
  • A paternal aunt who had once said she couldn’t manage him
  • His Tribe
  • STRTP staff
  • Regional Center
  • Behavioral health
  • Education
  • Child welfare
  
  Through the consensus-building process using the CANS, something shifted.  Instead of debating diagnoses, the team looked at actionable needs:
  • Adjustment to Trauma: high
  • Living situation instability: high
  • Developmental needs: present
  • Family strengths: present
  • Cultural identity: essential
  
  The team saw Mateo as a whole child. And something else became visible:
  His aunt had stepped back not because she didn’t love him, but because she didn’t feel supported.
  
  Kin-first/Kin-centered care became real in that moment.
  • Regional Center committed to in-home coaching
  • Behavioral health committed to trauma-focused services in the home
  • Education prepared for school-of-origin stability
  • Probation, consulted proactively, aligned supervision expectations
  • The Tribe supported kin placement planning
  • Child welfare integrated it into one plan
  
  That level of coordination does not happen by accident.
  
  But even then, barriers emerged:
  • Delays in service authorization
  • Lack of rapid onboarding for kin through Regional Center
  • Misaligned discharge timelines from STRTP
  • Transportation gaps between districts
  
  Those were not practice problems. They were system design problems.
  
  And that is where the ILT comes in:
  • Fidelity data and CFT patterns were elevated
  • The ILT reviewed recurring barriers
  • Protocols were redesigned
  • Cross-system rapid consultation pathways were established
  • Kin onboarding timelines were standardized
  
  System of Care changed what was possible.
  • Mateo transitioned to his aunt’s home with layered supports
  • STRTP days were reduced
  • School stability was preserved
  • Justice involvement was prevented
  • Family engagement strengthened
  
  System of Care works when:
  • Education identifies early
  • Child welfare holds accountability
  • Tribes are full partners
  • Behavioral health and DDS contribute expertise
  • Kin-First is operationalized
  • ILTs remove structural barriers
  • CFTs remain the backbone
  
  One child.
  One team.
  One evolving plan.
  One interdependent system.
  That is what System of Care makes possible.

• California Multi-Tiered System of Supports
• CA MTSS, Community Schools, and Connecting the Dots Children and Youth System of Care (CYSOC) Alignment
• System of Care State and Local Integration Convening
•  The Integrated Core Practice Model
• Integrated Core Practice Model Supervisor Toolkit
• Supervisor Toolkit 
• Ways We Can Support Your Interagency Agency Leadership Teams & System of Care Work
• Support Flyer
• California’s Integrated Core Practice Model (ICPM)
• ICPM Infographic
• ICPM Resources
• Integrated Core Practice Model Resources - Ventura County
• Cal Academy Integrated Core Practice Model Training Contacts
• Cal Academy ICPM Training Contacts 
• California’s Whole Child-Whole Family Ecosystem: Embracing and Activating the No Wrong Door Vision for Children, Youth and Families
• Webinar Series: California's Whole Child Whole Family Ecosystem Flyer