School climate is a broad concept representing the academic and non-academic factors that distinguish the felt experience of interactions with a school campus. While a single representative definition of school climate has eluded practitioners, several systematic reviews have identified four composite domains that can support assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation activities (Lenz et al., 2021; Rocha et al., 2019; Wang & Degol, 2016).   https://youtu.be/vlax0C_YkvA   Academic climate is characterized by features that promote student achievement and a culture of learning through developmentally responsive instruction, sufficient allocation of teaching resources, and an affirming culture of learning. At its core, a positive academic climate is grounded in strong leadership, high expectations of learning, support for students and teachers, timely assessment and monitoring practices, personalized learning plans, and the use of technology to promote engagement, collaboration, and success. School community is defined by the quality of interpersonal relationships grounded in a strong relationship between students, teachers, staff, parents, and community members that promotes inclusion, mutual respect, trust, safety, and connectedness. A positive school community is characterized by fair and equitable engagement of school stakeholders to share input, innovations, and resources during evaluation, decision-making, and planning processes that inform activities such as positive behavior programs, student well-being initiatives, professional development, and public relations. School safety is represented by the degree of physical and emotional security experienced by students, teachers, and staff that is conducive to a sense of protection and well-being that allows for optimal learning experiences. School safety is cultivated through physical and digital learning environments that minimize exposure to safety hazards, but also include policies for security and emergency readiness, procedures to address compliance with rules, and an integrated approach to prevention and intervention for social-emotional well-being threats such as bullying, conflict, and mental health challenges. Institutional environment is evidenced by the organizational, structural, and physical features through which school activities are conducted. These include variables ranging from the hours of operation, campus layout, quality of upkeep and maintenance, and class size to the degree of transparency and communication regarding the availability and allocation of technology, resources, supports, and materials. Taken together, the composite domains of school climate are expressed in synergistically complex ways that are both uniquely subjective and objectively observable experiences; they operate not only within student-student dyads, but within a matrix of interactions between students, teachers, staff, parents, and community members; they are influenced both actively and as a part of natural developmental processes; they are both input and output and often function as both process and outcome in their contribution to overall school climate. Despite these complexities, investments in school climate are certainly worthwhile as researchers continue to find promising associations with academic achievement (Daily et al., 2019), graduation rates (Buckman et al., 2021), college-going and persistence (Knight & Duncan, 2020), reductions in physical, emotional, and cyberbullying behaviors (Acosta et al., 2019), positive student and teacher mental health (Dreer, 2022; Wang et al., 2020), teacher job satisfaction and retention (Casely-Hayford et al., 2022; Otrębski, 2022), and civic engagement (Torney-Purta, 2002). Prevention and Identification Strategies Supporting a positive school climate requires intentional collaboration among multiple stakeholders and decision-makers to foster a proactive preventative agenda that targets the academic and non-academic development and well-being of the school community. Key among the related activities is the use of a well-designed assessment strategy to develop a data-driven plan to implement age-appropriate prevention programs. The American Institutes for Research (2023) cited school climate assessment as the principal activity to support a positive school climate through the identification of similarities and differences in perceptions between groups of stakeholders. When selecting an assessment for your campus, consider that the reliability and validity of all scores do not generalize to all stakeholders equally. Thus, it is imperative to consider not only the constructs, costs, length, and logistics of a school climate measure but also the degree that normative data reflects your campus. Furthermore, an equity-minded approach to school climate need identification will need to account for the representativeness of the sample with the corpus of students, teachers, and staff, as well as, a multi-method analysis that articulates both broad and disaggregated data trends. Some measures available for consideration include: Panorama Student Survey (Grades 6-12; Students, no cost); School Climate Assessment Instrument (Grades K-12; Students, Teachers, Staff, Parents/ Guardians, no cost); U.S. Department of Education School Climate Surveys (Grades 5-12; Students, Teachers, Staff; no cost); Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (Grades 3-12; Students, Staff, Parents/Guardians, Community Members, fee-based). Once campus characteristics are identified, it is possible to develop data-responsive prevention campaigns. School-based prevention programs vary in nature from universal to targeted, persistent to short-term, digital to face-to-face, and resource intensive to logistically modest. Once campus characteristics are identified, it is possible to develop data-responsive prevention campaigns. School-based prevention programs vary in nature from universal to targeted, persistent to short-term, digital to face-to-face, and resource intensive to logistically modest. Taken together, the campaigns selected for implementation also bear varying degrees and paces of impact. For example, some preventative programs may be short-term and efficacious; by contrast, others may feature multi-year campaigns with small but systemic cumulative effects. Therefore, it is prudent to develop a campus prevention programming agenda that not only responds to school climate data but can also be monitored for global and differentiated responses among stakeholders. While many areas of academic and non-academic development are worthwhile foci for prevention efforts, common topics include: Alcohol and drug use prevention programming that provides normative education, teaches social resistance skills, provide normative education, and reinforces competence;  Anti-bullying programs that develop the knowledge and skills to recognize, respond, and report wide-ranging forms of bullying such as verbal, physical, social, and cyberbullying;  Civic engagement and social responsibility efforts aimed to promote volunteerism, participation in public elections, and advocacy;  Cybersecurity awareness raising related to issues such as the use of good netiquette, identity protection, interacting with others online, and sharing sensitive information;  Personal wellness and mental health promotion initiatives that include healthy living, nutrition, personal resilience, mental health literacy, and social-emotional coping skills;  Positive relationships and social skills that teach active listening, effective communication, character education, non-violent conflict resolution, and self-advocacy;  Safety and security of self and others in school and non-school-based spaces.  Intervention Strategies School-based interventions have a prominent position within the cadre of approaches to improve, support, and maintain a positive school climate. While many of the topics and methods of intervention delivery are similar to those of prevention efforts, there are key differences in the purpose and intended outcomes. Among these key differences is a focus on (a) directing efforts to children who have developed a problem rather than those who are at risk, (b) deliberate rather than incidental risk reduction, and (c) targeted rather than universal implementation. There is substantial evidence that well-designed intervention programs can affect the domains of school climate with some prominent options available in urban and rural campuses described below. However, the selection of which intervention may be best suited for your campus would rest on thoughtful deliberation of available data, feedback, and available resources. #1 School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) The implementation of PBIS has increased in recent decades as campus stakeholders attempt to support academic and non-academic success through teaching, modeling, and rewarding positive behaviors as an alternative to practices such as admonishment, inconsistent punishment, and exclusionary practices. Rather than rely on a standardized curriculum, PBIS is grounded in a foundational framework of measurable goals and outcomes, databased decision-making, identification and implementation of evidence-based practices, and a systems-level application (Center on PBIS, 2023). These composite interventions are supported across 3 tiers (Universal, Targeted, Intensive and Individualized) as indicated by student needs and school capacity (Harlacher et al., 2018). Despite the unique expression of PBIS across campuses, there is promising evidence for the fidelity of implementation and desired associations with academic achievement, prosocial behavior, discipline referrals, and suspensions (Noltemeyer et al., 2019). #2 Mental Health Support Services School-based mental health support services (MHSS) increase student access to individual or team-based care delivered by licensed and non-licensed providers for commonly occurring clinical issues. MHSS approaches are based on the assumption that mental health and academic achievement have reciprocal influences on one another and consider evidence-based and manualized interventions as a pathway to promote to support development and well-being across the lifespan (Raffaele Mendez, 2017). Students participate in individual and small group services using any combination of in-person and telehealth mediums. Programs such as Think First (Larson, 2005), Brief Coping Cat (Kendall et al., 2013), Stop and Think (Caselman, 2005), the Adolescent Coping with Depression Course (Clark et al., 1990), and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (Jaycox et al., 2018) are available for treating aggression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, and posttraumatic stress, respectively. While considerable evidence exists for the application of such programs, the observed effects tend to be largest for targeted interventions and moderated by a combination of program type, length of intervention, and age group (Feiss et al., 2019; Sanchez et al., 2018). #3 Conflict Resolution and Peer-Mediation Programs Teaching students to resolve disagreements provides a supportive platform to increase felt safety and reduce incidents of violence while concurrently fostering the communication, problem-solving, and interpersonal effectiveness skills that will be adaptive across the lifespan. Conflict resolution skills are taught to individual students by teachers, administrators, and school counselors who focus on applications such as early intervention, real-time remedies, and follow-up training. Common elements include the use of constructive communication, steps in negotiation, and debriefing activities. Staff and students can also serve as a mediator between 2 or more students when students require additional support to resolve a disagreement. While standalone programs and curricula Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers (Johnson & Johnson, 2005) and Overcoming Obstacles are available for access, school personnel often develop and implement interventions based on units within a universal social-emotional learning curriculum or to meet established standards. Evidence has indicated program effects ranging from small to moderate based on various implementation characteristics (McElwain et al., 2017; Turk, 2018). #4 Peer Mentoring and Support Programs Peer mentoring programs offer a dynamic and relational way to support student success by matching an older student with a younger one who shares a similar developmental pathway. These interventions have the potential to stimulate mutual growth and learning for mentors and mentees by capitalizing on the youth's inherent interest in peer relationships and innate tendency to look up to slightly older peers (Garringer & MacRae, 2008). Effective peer mentoring programs need to consider several elements such as (a) goals and intended impact, (b) participant recruitment, screening, and selection, (c) mentor training, (d) strategies for matching, (e) parent education and orientation, (f) mentor and mentee supports and monitoring, and (g) approaches to resolving the relationship. Several models such as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the Cross-Age Mentoring Program (CAMP) Cross-Campus Model (Karcher 2012), and Just for Kids! (Smith, 2011) are available for reference, as well as, toolkits provided by groups such as the National Success Mentors Initiative and National Mentoring and Resource Center. Well-designed peer mentoring and support programs have been associated with promising evidence for academic, psychosocial, and health outcomes, particularly when delivered off-campus and with adult supervision and support (Burton et al., 2022; Raposa et al., 2019). #5 Restorative Practices Restorative practices provide an alternative to zero-tolerance disciplinary policies and punitive discipline through the facilitated repair and strengthening of relationships among individual students when harm has occurred. These aims can be reached through several strategies including (a) informal proactive discussions that allow for respectful, empathic, accountability-oriented, and collaborative conversations; (b) reactive strategies that address individual and classroom-wide incidents of harm; and (c) formal discussions that focused on support and accountability to increase empathy, acceptance, and belonging. Specific restorative practice interventions include restorative conferences, restorative conversations, conversation circles, classroom conferences, and classroom lessons (Winslade et al., 2014). Numerous program models and training guides are available through groups such as the International Institute for Restorative Practice and Restorative Practices Partnership which can be referenced by school administrators, teachers, and staff. Preliminary evidence reviews of restorative practices have indicated trends between intervention with decreased disciplinary referrals and improved student-teacher relationships (Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021). However, given the correlational nature of evidence to date, school personnel must consider the unique intersection of campus characteristics, training and support resources, implementation capacity, and emerging research findings when developing their approach to cultivating school safety and security. Key Implications for Practice Fostering a positive school climate is a complex task requiring an intentional approach that includes stakeholders across the ecology of student academic and non-academic development. Scoping reviews of best practices and evidence-based approaches offer numerous considerations including: The importance of articulating, adopting, and communicating a shared vision of a positive school climate and related campus priorities, goals, and activities;  Establishing and nurturing a culture of quality improvement that emphasizes transparency, developmental supports, multiple sources of feedback and data and avoids interpersonal pitfalls such as toxic positivity, stereotyping, and scapegoating;  Implementation across the campus’ multi-tiered system of supports using evidence-based approaches to prevention and intervention that are delivered with consistent vernacular and a sense of shared ownership;  Intentional and consistent inclusion of internal stakeholders such as students, teachers, and school/district staff, as well as, external stakeholders who are outside of the day-to-day operations, but whose interests can support success; and  District support for school climate-promoting initiatives through the allocation of funding, resources, personnel, and training to promote implementation fidelity, monitoring, and accountability practices.  Related Resources Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)  This guiding legislation empowered school districts to establish accountability standards and related interventions and supports to promote student success. The ESSA requires annual reporting of school climate and safety data and creates opportunities to create learning environments that support the academic and non-academic success of all students.  National School Climate Standards  The National School Climate Standards represent a set of criteria intended to support school climate assessment, intervention, and accountability. Rather than provide specific guidance, the Standards provide a framework for identifying, planning, and implementing local practices that are based on campus characteristics, priorities, and resources.  National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments  The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary School's Office of Safe and Supportive Schools. The Center offers information and technical assistance focused on improving school climate and conditions for learning for all students.  School Climate Survey Compendium  This compendium includes links to several surveys that can be administered to pre-K through postsecondary campus stakeholders to identify and monitor school climate. All of the listed surveys have score reliability and validity data available for inspection; however, the constructs representing the internal structure of the measures may vary.  School Climate Literature Compendium  This compendium includes access to peer-reviewed publications that address issues, trends, policies, best practices, and research related to planning, implementation, and monitoring of school climate. The hosting site provides links to organizations and resources that support youth, parents, educators, and community involvement in positive school climate promotion.  https://doi.org/10.17077/rep.006641 

School mental health has recently seen an unprecedented surge in interest and investment. This growth is fueled by a youth mental health crisis, exacerbated by the global pandemic, paired with evidence for schools as a critical venue for preventing and treating mental health problems (Hoover & Bostic, 2021a). As Co-Director of the federally-funded National Center for School Mental Health for over a decade, and as a clinical psychologist working in schools for a decade before that, I have had the privilege of witnessing and supporting expansion of school mental health in the United States. In all of my years in this field, I have never observed the (long overdue) level of interest and investment we are now seeing, and it is essential that we act with intention and focus.   [embed]https://youtu.be/AkrJa-t5jGA[/embed] 5 Opportunities to Leverage this School Mental Health Moment Below, I outline five opportunities fundamental to leveraging this unparalleled moment in school mental health to achieve the ultimate goal of promoting mental health and well-being for all youth. Each opportunity aligns with the central theme of “moving upstream,” investing in a public health approach to promote well-being of all students, identify mental health concerns early, and strategically offer early intervention and treatment where youth are – in schools. Opportunity 1: Nurturing Environments that Foster Prosocial Behaviors and Connectedness We have incontrovertible evidence that the vast majority of challenges impacting our youth could be prevented or diminished by creating nurturing environments starting early and continuing into middle and high school and beyond. In his book, “The Nurture Effect: How the Science of Human Behavior Can Improve Our Lives and Our World,” Dr. Anthony Biglan, a Senior Scientist at the Oregon Research Institute, distills decades of scientific research from the fields of psychology and prevention science into tangible, actionable steps that policymakers, families, and institutions like schools can take to reduce youth problems and to produce caring and productive young people (Biglan, 2015). In a nutshell, the research from years of rigorous randomized trials tells us that all successful interventions make environments more nurturing in at least three of four ways: Promoting and reinforcing prosocial behavior Minimizing socially and biologically toxic conditions, like poor nutrition and housing insecurity Monitoring and setting limits on influences and opportunities to engage in problem behavior Promoting the mindful, flexible, and pragmatic pursuit of prosocial values These interventions can and should be implemented with both families and schools. In the earliest years of children’s development, effective interventions include things like Incredible Years, Nurse-Family Partnerships, and the Triple P Parenting Program. In elementary years and beyond, interventions like Family Check Up are helpful to support parents in handling common problems, using reinforcement to promote positive behavior, monitoring their child’s behavior and setting limits, and improving family communication and problem solving. Schoolwide systems to minimize coercive and punitive interactions and to teach, promote, and richly reinforce prosocial behaviors have demonstrated long-term positive impacts on adolescent risk behavior and engagement in college and career. When implemented with fidelity, the promise of programs like Good Behavior Game, Positive Action, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports to promote prosocial outcomes in our adolescents and young adults is tremendous. Further, we must invest in school environments and strategies that increase a sense of student connectedness (Centers for Disease Control, 2022). In their most recent report on youth mental health, the Centers for Disease Control called on the nation’s schools to act with urgency and compassion to promote connectedness and belonging among students (CDC, 2023). Doing so, they argued, has the potential to dramatically improve youth well-being and to tackle the concerning increases in child and adolescent depression, anxiety, and suicide. The good news is that we have years of evidence for the positive impact of effective programming to promote student connectedness and belonging, including interventions that target positive school climate and positive youth development. There are seemingly simple daily strategies that educators can employ to create a warm environment that fosters connection. For example, welcoming students by name and with a friendly greeting when they board the school bus and enter the school and classroom is a no-cost but powerful tool. Ensuring that each student has at least one positive adult ally in the school and one extracurricular activity in which they are actively engaged also enhances student connectedness. More comprehensive school climate programming, including assessment and continuous quality improvement of school climate domains (belonging and connection, safety and wellness, environment), is also critical. Several districts across the nation have utilized the school climate assessment platform and accompanying toolkit for school leaders funded by the U.S. Department of Education via the National Center for Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (National Center for Safe Supportive Learning Environments, 2023). To fully address the current youth crisis and to prevent future mental health challenges, it is essential to foster nurturing environments where youth feel connected and engage in positive, health-promoting behaviors. Schools can also increase connectedness and belonging among students by employing positive youth development programming and strategies that identify and leverage youth assets and protective factors (U.S Government Youth, n.d.). Opportunity 2: Mental Health Literacy and Life Skills In addition to fostering positive and nurturing school environments that enhance student and staff well-being, we are increasingly seeing efforts to embed life skills and mental health literacy into the curriculum (Hopeful Futures, 2023). Several states and districts have adopted standards of social emotional learning (SEL), sometimes referred to as “skills for life,” and aligned them with curricular requirements. Despite the ongoing debate about the role of SEL in schools, educators and families universally agree that schools must foster life skills that promote academic success, employability, and citizenship. In partnership with families, schools are an essential venue for teaching and reinforcing skills like problem-solving, empathy, communication skills, and emotion regulation, all critical to daily and life success. Whether states and communities choose to call them “social emotional competencies,” “skills for life,” or even “employability skills,” there is a long and robust research base documenting the evidence of these skills as predictors of better school performance, well-being, and college and career readiness (Greenberg, 2023). Recently, several states have also passed legislation that requires the integration of mental health literacy into K-12 education (Mission Square Research Institute, 2021). Typically, mental health literacy involves teaching students how to obtain and sustain positive mental health, understand and identify mental health challenges, decrease stigma about mental illness, and seek help for mental health concerns. Dr. Stan Kutcher and colleagues from Canada developed, studied, and widely disseminated mental health literacy programming throughout schools in Canada and several other countries. Implementation studies of their mental health literacy intervention demonstrated increased educator and student knowledge about mental illness and health and greater help-seeking behaviors among students (see www.mentalhealthliteracy.org). This intervention has since been adapted for and studied in the United States by the Mental Health Collaborative with versions for educators, students, families, and coaches. I anticipate Mental Health Essentials and other mental health literacy programs like Born this Way and Teen Mental Health First Aid will be increasingly adopted by state and district leaders as an upstream approach to managing the youth mental health crisis. Other states will develop “homegrown” life skills curricula, as we saw mandated by Utah’s legislature, in which the state department of education partnered with a local mental health institute to embed mental health literacy during the school day and to engage parents in its implementation (State of Utah, 2022). Both life skills and mental health literacy offer an opportunity to build more resilient and emotionally healthy generation of students, better equipped to navigate life stressors and mental health challenges. Opportunity 3: Well-Being Check Ins Almost two decades ago we saw a burgeoning interest in school mental health screening when states were increasingly funded to deliver suicide prevention activities in schools. This trend was not without challenges or controversy, and many states and districts opted not to implement comprehensive screening programs, often due to concerns about privacy or liability if concerns were identified without the capacity to address them in the school. While these concerns remain, COVID and a greater recognition of the vital role of schools in early identification of mental health challenges have contributed to a renewed interest in school mental health screening (Hoover et al., 2020). As interest and implementation of mental health screening in schools grows, we have observed some best practices to safeguard against some of the challenges encountered with previous efforts. For example, to address concerns about privacy and parent/student rights, many school communities have intentionally engaged families and students during the planning stages of screening. Students and families provide input on consent and assent processes, instrument selection, privacy considerations, and family notification procedures to ensure that efforts are feasible, culturally sound, and well-received by the community (Hoover & Bostic, 2021b). Our National Center for School Mental Health developed a School Mental Health Quality Guide on Screening, laying out the nuts and bolts of best practices in school mental health screening (National Center for School Mental Health, 2020). I am also heartened by the movement away from annual screenings rooted in traditional medical models of psychopathology toward more frequent “well-being check-ins” that assess constructs like subjective well-being, belonging, and connectedness. Furlong and Dowdy, colleagues at UCSB, have led the Covitality project to support schools in measuring these factors as opposed to simply assessing for anxiety, depression, or trauma alone. In doing so, they have demonstrated that when we inquire about how connected students feel to their home, school, and community and about their general well-being, we are more able to predict who is doing well and who could benefit from intervention. Schools are also increasingly assessing for social determinants of health that influence mental health, shifting the focus of intervention to systems that contribute to poor mental health, like housing and food stability, and away from “fixing” individuals responding to poor conditions. We have also seen a movement toward more frequent check-ins that allow teachers and other school staff to quickly assess the emotional status of their students and connect them to coping skills or staff support when needed. Programs like CloseGap, a rapid, technology-supported app that students can report on daily as they begin school, offers teachers and school mental health staff a “pulse check” of the daily well-being of students. This type of relatively low-burden check-in prevents students who may be suffering from falling through the cracks and allows teachers to route students to support. Opportunity 4: Filling in Tier 2 School mental health has long been described as best implemented as a multi-tiered system of supports, or MTSS (Hoover et al., 2019). Usually, this involves three tiers, from Tier 1 (Universal) supports that promote mental health of all students in the school system to Tier 3 (Indicated) services for students with identified mental health challenges that interfere with daily functioning. While most schools offer something at each tier, I am increasingly hearing concerns about a “missing tier 2” within the MTSS. That is, schools often have at least some programming that reflects universal approaches to mental health such as school climate efforts, positive behavior interventions and supports, mental health literacy, or social emotional learning. Similarly, schools typically offer some level of Tier 3 services to struggling students, sometimes as part of special education supports or via partnerships with school-based community behavioral health providers. However, there is considerably less consistency in the delivery of Tier 2 supports for students with mild mental health concerns or for those who may be at greater risk for experiencing mental health challenges. Despite their demonstrated effectiveness in schools, Tier 2 interventions are often limited due to lack of staffing or funding to support training and implementation. Whereas Tier 1 supports are typically delivered by educators and other school staff and Tier 3 services are regularly funded and delivered by specialty providers like psychologists, social workers, and counselors, it is often unclear who is best equipped to deliver Tier 2 services and how those services can be funded. From a public health perspective, a “missing Tier 2” is a major limitation in fully supporting the mental health needs of all youth in a school and community. It is well established that a longer duration of untreated mental illness is associated with poorer outcomes and that early identification and intervention can positively adjust the trajectory of psychosocial, academic, and life outcomes for youth. Fortunately, intervention developers and funders are gaining momentum filling in Tier 2 by offering feasible approaches for Tier 2 implementation. Tier 2 services may include brief individual interventions, like Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), an early intervention for substance use concerns, or Brief Intervention for School Clinicians, a 4-session intervention based on cognitive behavioral and motivational enhancement techniques. Group modalities are also sometimes used to deliver Tier 2 interventions, including programs like Supporting Transition Resilience of Newcomer Groups,  a school-based intervention to facilitate the transition of refugee and immigrant students to a new school and community. Some schools also utilize Tier 2 interventions like Check In Check Out (Maggin et al., 2015) or Check and Connect as a way to monitor and support students through checking in throughout the school day with a designated adult and employing coping skills if challenges like mild anxiety or low mood are identified. To fully realize the potential of effective Tier 2 interventions, we must leverage a broader workforce, including health educators and peers, and require reimbursement for these upstream interventions via education funding, Medicaid, and other insurers. Opportunity 5: School Staff Well-Being The pandemic shed new light on educator stress and burnout and their impact on quality of teaching performance, retention, and student academic and well-being outcomes (Mission Square Research Institute, 2021). The constant shifting demands, added burden, and perceptions of lack of transparency by administrators left educators feeling even more overworked and undervalued than before COVID. Given research that stressed teachers are more likely to leave the profession, researchers, policymakers, and education leaders have increasingly focused on promoting educator well-being and reducing their stress. Efforts have targeted both individual and organizational factors that contribute to educator well-being. Live and asynchronous online training opportunities have been adopted by states and school districts to enhance teachers’ personal well-being. For example, Wisconsin’s educators utilize the Compassion Resilience Toolkit  to understand, recognize, and prevent/reverse compassion fatigue. The Georgetown Well-being in School Environments (WISE) Center also developed an online course, TeacherWISE, for educators and school staff to engage in personal well-being planning and support. Beyond relying on educators to simply care better for themselves, districts and schools must be accountable for creating conditions that foster educator well-being. Our National Center for School Mental Health partnered with the SAMHSA-funded Central East Mental Health Technology Transfer Center to develop a free online system, the Organizational Well-Being Inventory for Schools for districts and schools to assess the organizational factors that contribute to educator well-being and to engage in continuous quality improvement in eight domains: Work Climate and Environment; Input, Flexibility, and Autonomy; Professional Development and Recognition; Organizational and Supervisory Support; Self-Care; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access; Purpose and Meaningfulness; and, Professional Quality of Life. Be attending to organizational factors that contribute to educator well-being, districts and schools can better support school staff so that they are best able to fully engage in their professional responsibilities and flourish as human beings. Conclusion As a nation, we are primed to fully recognize schools as critical to promoting mental health and well-being for all youth and identifying and intervening early when mental health challenges arise. The need is clear and urgent, there are many best practice frameworks and programs to support implementation, and educators and families universally recognize that schools must be part of the solution to our youth mental health crisis. To realize the potential of the school mental health opportunities discussed above, there must be an intentional shift in policy and funding, supported by federal, state, and local partners. The Hopeful Futures Campaign, a national coalition of health, education, family, and youth leaders, have united around state policy levers that can advance comprehensive school mental health (see www.hopefulfutures.us for the National School Mental Health Report Card and the National School Mental Health Legislative Guide). They have assessed each state’s progress on drivers of school mental health like mental health professional-to-student ratios, well-being check-ins, healthy school climate, and skills for life, and offered legislative examples and guidance to state policymakers. Table 1 outlines policies aligned with the five opportunities laid out above. All of us should approach this moment in human history with a combined sense of urgency and hope. For school mental health, we are equipped to position schools as a true partner to families and communities in their quest to foster youth that are well and flourishing. Let us together strategically capitalize on the interest and investment in school mental health by advocating for policy and funding shifts that align with opportunities in the field. https://doi.org/10.17077/rep.006642