In 1997, I was in my first year with Mental Health America of Los Angeles (MHA) when we began exploring a future school site for a program in health and human services. The first step was to visit and interview the administration of several local urban high schools.  As the industry partner, MHA’s goal was to identify the school with an administrator that was willing to commit to a long-term partnership and who demonstrated readiness to engage with the health and mental health community.  After visiting and interviewing four high schools, one administrators and high school emerged as a potential partner.  Here were three important elements that played a role in MHA’s decision to select this particular school site:

1. Physical Aspects: The school site was designed to serve a large disabled student population in that region and it led to several assumptions from MHA.  First, students from the general population are aware and empathetic toward people with a disability.  In other words, there was already a growing acceptance toward “differentness” among the general student population and MHA wanted to build on that, as empathy fosters a sense of likeness (Corrigan, 2004).  Second, this school context allowed MHA to recruit and involve students with disabilities in shaping the program and its diversity.
2. School Structure: The high school was on a traditional or single track and had a smaller student body compared to the other schools.  A small school became a critical factor because MHA wanted small student cohorts linked to a small team of teachers in order to establish meaningful relationships.  Large student cohorts meant less intimacy and less sense of community.  Also, being traditional meant that the team of teachers could work during the summer aligning their curriculum to industry standards.  Research suggests that students reach higher levels of academic achievement in a smaller school environment mainly because they are able to build a strong relationship with a caring teacher (Certo et al., 2003; Cotton, 2001).
3. Culture/Context: The administration at the high school was enthusiastic and supportive to the idea of starting up the first health/human services program on their campus.  Being the only career pathway program on campus became crucial because it meant that MHA did not have to compete for students, for school resources or for administrative support.  It also meant autonomy in decision-making in critical areas such as curriculum, schedule of classes, teacher and student recruitment, and common planning time.  Programs that have autonomy tend to produce quality results and maintain a unique learning culture that engages people (Duke & Trautvetter, 2001).

However, there was one major hurdle that MHA needed to jump over before doing business with the school.  That hurdle was the School Leadership Council (SLC), which functioned as a decision-making body for the school.  The SLC group consisted of students, parents, teachers, administrators, classified staff and community members.  The health/human services program concept needed to be voted on and approved by this committee before MHA was allowed on campus.

In our first presentation to the SLC group, we expressed our desire to open a pathway program that would benefit students, teachers and the overall school.  We described our proposed program as a start-up project designed to target average “C” students and to engage them in a health/human services career path.  We also emphasized that the program would be staffed with a team of five existing core academic teachers who would work closely with students to improve their academics and get them ready for college.  MHA also made a commitment to serve as the industry partner and to provide students with paid work-based learning opportunities and train the team of teachers on integrating basic areas of health and mental health into their academic curricula. In our business, there is a common statement or a mantra that is uttered repeatedly by those who oppose housing near their neighborhoods for people with a mental illness: “NIMBY – Not in My Backyard.”  This statement resonated at the end of our presentation.  Not only was our proposal unenthusiastically received by the group, but the school counselor physically got up and shouted: “Who do you think you are coming in to our school wanting to psychoanalyze our students, not in our school you’re not!”  Sound familiar?  Although we never proposed analyzing anyone, the result was a split vote.  It was clear that the SLC group was not fully in favor of having MHA on their campus.  Eventually, with the full support of the principal, our proposal passed by one vote.

This story contains an important implication: In order to organize and motivate people toward setting and achieving goals that lead to building capacity to get things done, the planning work must be done in collaboration and not in isolation.  In order to avoid conflict, all stakeholders must be involved in decision-making as early as possible in the planning process.  Moreover, establishing strong partnerships and sharing decision-making among stakeholders will lead to a successful program.

Perhaps the strongest point to be taken from this experience is this idea of an industry sector seeking and initiating a discussion with the secondary and post-secondary sectors, in the effort to create a seamless educational and human services workforce pipeline, is unusual.  Traditionally, it is the academic sector that seeks out an industry or business partner with the hope that the industry partner will also financially support their program.  From the beginning, MHA believed that its workforce investment depended on strong partnerships with the secondary and post-secondary sectors.  An industry partner contributes to the development of a pathway program by: 1) helping to develop curriculum that is relevant to industry standards; 2) identifying experiential work-based learning opportunities; 3) providing in-kind support; 4) providing guest lecturers to share personal and professional experiences with students; and 5) assisting in the alignment of career technical education curriculum and academic curriculum.  My boss Richard Van Horn, president of Mental Health America of Los Angeles, and a strong advocate for industry involvement in shaping the future workforce for mental health, once said to me that, “the industry partner needs to be willing and able to dedicate staff and resources to complete elements of an academy program, via term-time work, career counseling, college entrance counseling, family relationships and motivation.”  Curriculum development can benefit if the industry partner is helping a team of teachers target specific learning goals and skill requirements.  Motivational issues in career direction are reinforced if the course of academic programs is adjusted to highlight the history and development of the specific career path.  The industry partner can often be an effective mediator between the local campuses and parent institutions, districts or systems, to develop the political will to try new approaches.