Among the school personnel interviewed, a major theme voiced was that CISM provided a structured framework for crisis intervention service delivery and a common language for crisis-intervention providers who varied in their professional background and years of experience. The adoption of the CISM Model, however, was not found to have a measurable effect on faculty and staff perceptions of whether the crisis intervention services had an impact on student outcomes. Relative to the period before the adoption of the CISM Model for schools, school faculty and staff had higher ratings for the CISM Model regarding the assistance of crisis-intervention providers in informing students about the crisis. Higher ratings were also obtained for crisis-intervention providers' meeting with faculty members. Ratings were higher regarding providers informing parents about the crisis, the provision of onsite crisis-intervention materials, and assistance in developing a school-based plan of action for dealing with the crisis. Adoption of the CISM Model did not change school faculty and staff ratings in two key areas: whether individual consultation with teachers assisted students in dealing with the crisis and whether individual or small-group counseling with students assisted students in dealing with the crisis. Possible explanations for these findings are presented. The CISM Model was developed by Mitchell (1983) for use with emergency service personnel. It is a multifaceted package of crisis intervention service delivery. A core component is Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, which consists of seven defined phases intended to promote emotional processing by permitting individuals to vent reactions and receive supportive feedback that promotes the normalization of these reactions. 1 table, 2 figures, 58 references, and appended questionnaire