When Worlds Collide: Implementing PBS across Multidisciplinary Residential Settings

1. When Worlds Collide: Implementing PBS across Multidisciplinary Residential Settings C. Michael Nelson, Ed.D. National Technical Assistance Center for PBIS Kristine Jolivette, Ph.D. Georgia State University

2. Advanced Organizer • Overview: History and Rationale√ Definition of multidisciplinary residential settings • Characteristics & needs of institutionalized youth√ Review of national PBS outcome research√ Rationale for using PBS in residential settings • Implementation Fidelity in Residential Settings √ Procedures √ Adaptations for residential settings • Exemplar in residential setting

3. Definition of Multidisciplinary Residential Setting • Any 24/7 facility • Facilities with multiple systems • Education • Security • Mental health/counseling • Vocation • Recreation • Facilities with transient youth • Public/private residential facilities • Juvenile justice facilities (short- and long-term)

4. Youth in Juvenile Corrections • Characteristics that relate to behavior: • Special education classification • Mental disorders • Drug and alcohol abuse • History of abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence J. Gagnon, 2008

5. Questions • Why do these troubled and disabled youth end up in the juvenile justice system? • When do their problems first emerge? • What role do social institutions (family services, early childhood programs, schools, juvenile delinquency programs) play in either addressing or exacerbating these problems?

6. Outcomes of PBS • Reductions in: • discipline referral rates by 50% to 60% (Horner, Sugai, & Todd, 2001); • office discipline referrals (Lane & Menzies, 2003); • fighting (McCurdy, Mannella, & Eldridge, 2003); • in-school suspension (Scott, 2001); • classroom disruption (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004); and • negative student-adult interactions (Clarke, Worcester, Dunlap, Murray, & Bradely-Klug, 2002) • Increases in: • academic achievement (Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; Horner et al., 2009) and • perceived school safety (Horner et al., 2009)

7. How Juvenile Justice “Works” • Incarceration PLUS punishment • Successful completion of “treatment” plans require high levels of literacy skills • Release is contingent upon progress through the treatment plan • Education is an add-on

8. Covariate adjusted mean recidivism effect sizes forintervention philosophies (Lipsey, 2009)

9. Why PBS in Secure Facilities? • Effective and efficient alternative to harsh, inconsistent, and ineffective disciplinary methods in public schools • Discipline in many secure facilities is often harsh and harmful • punishment mentality • inconsistency among staff • Decisions about discipline not linked to data on youth behavior

10. PBS – Links to These Settings • Two youth development principles • Appropriate Structure • Predictable routines, rules, and expectations • Consistent implementation of supports by staff linked to positive expectations • Positive Social Norms • Teaching and modeling of appropriate, expected behaviors • Reinforcement for displaying these behaviors • National Council on Disability (2003) • Incorporation of evidence-based interventions • Comprehensive -Durable • Relevant - PositiveK. Jolivette, 2009

11. Call for Action • National Council on Disability (2003) call for PBS in JJ • Researchers call for PBS extension to AE, Residential, and JJ settings • (Houchins, Jolivette, Wessendorf, McGlynn, & Nelson, 2005; Nelson, Sugai, & Smith, 2005; Scott, Nelson, Liaupsin, Jolivette, Christle, & Riney, 2001) • Limited experimental studies implementing PBS in AE, residential, or JJ settings • Unknown application in residential settings • NM & NC implementing PBS in all JJ educational settings • TX passed legislation for state-wide implementation • AL, ID, MA, VT considering PBS for JJ • CA, IA, IL, OR, WA—PBS in at least one JJ facility • KY beginning pilot in one facility • (National Center on the Education of Children who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk, 2007)

12. Obstacles and Opportunities • Belief that incarceration shouldn’t be “positive” • Use of complex, multi-level “treatment” curricula • Failure to systematically collect or use behavior data for decision-making • Lack of staff communication across disciplines--no mandate or precedent

13. Obstacles and Opportunities (cont.) • Staff turnover • •Youth turnover • Lack of time for training, collaboration • No history of or interest in collaboration • Disproportionate number of youth with disabilities, lacking literacy skills, significant mental health problems • Others?

14. School-wide Positive Behavior Support Systems Classroom Setting Systems Non-classroom Setting Systems Individual Student Systems School-wide Systems

15. Positive Behavior Support Systems in Residential Facilities Individual Youth Housing Units Education Program Other Programs Facility-wide Systems

16. Tertiary Prevention: Multiple discipline reports per month CONTINUUM OF PROGRAM-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% Secondary Prevention: 2-5 discipline reports per month ~15% Primary Prevention: 1 or 0 discipline reports per month ~80% of Youth

17. Iowa Juvenile Home Continuum of School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports 32% ~53% Tertiary Prevention ~ 23% Secondary Prevention ~24% Primary Prevention

18. Current Status • Residential Schools/Facilities • 24-hour monitoring of social, emotional, educational needs; involuntary enrollment (Gagnon & Leone, 2005) • 13% enrollment increase among students with EBD in past 10 years • ½ to ¾ total population receive special education services under EBD • Program philosophy: Behavioral (53%), Psychoeducational (28%)(Gagnon & Leone, 2005) • Students: high prevalence of mental health diagnoses, minorities, anti-social behaviors

19. The Team Needs to … • Look at global considerations • Look at possible systems, data, and practice issues

20. Considerations for the Facility • Level of Support • How much? (initial training plus follow-up) • How configured? (all staff at one time or by individual systems) • By whom? (university/local personnel, different based on staff) • Staff Issues • Fusing of different philosophies and educational backgrounds • Attitude (negativity, “catching youth being bad”) • Securing buy-in (how so across all staff) • Logistics • Time (release time, reconfiguration of duties) • Staffing (will it look different, impact on facility) • Resources (SWIS, research articles, behavioral strategies) • Financial • Training costs (substitute teachers, more security) • Reinforcement (youth versus staff)

21. Systems Issues • Who would constitute a leadership team • Facility and non-facility participants • Disconnect between residential systems and staff • Educational,Housing unit,Security, Mental health, Recreation • Competing priorities • Safety first everything else second • Hierarchies and politics within and across systems • Power, History, Resource allocation

22. Data Issues • Different types of and reporting mechanisms for data collected • Anecdotal, frequency, duration, daily, weekly, monthly, semester reports • Limited sharing of data • Across staff within and outside of systems • “Big Picture” of what is going on often missing • Disconnect between 24/7 events (morning, school, lunch, after-school, afternoon, evening, nighttime)

23. Practice Issues • “Saboteurs” • Lack of “buy-in” by ALL staff across systems • Use of non-scientific strategies, interventions, and curricula • Lack of “knowing” or time to investigate/staying with current practices • Differential & low expectations of youth • Lack of administrative and staff consensus on strategies/interventions • Expectations change dependent on the environment, staff, time of day, etc. • Trying to catch youth being “bad” (punishment focus)

24. Residential Facility Demographics • Residential School • For students with severe EBD referred by schools, mental health agencies, and the courts • 1 – 12 grades • ½ Year 1 = 75 students; Year 2 = 75 students • 11 teachers and 1 staff person per class • Residential Units • 8 units; 2-3 staff per shift • Students on-site 24 hours, 7 days a week • Students eat lunch on the units

25. As a Team – you … But you HAVE to for Residential settings!!!!!!

26. Show Respect Take Responsibility Accept Adult Directions Respond Appropriately I have proven I am a star because I can: E&S Staff saw it all! Residential School/Unit-wide Expectations • Be a STAR • Show respect • Take responsibility • Accept adult directions • Respond appropriately

28. Sample School Student Rft. • 5-10 S.T.A.R.s Pens or pencil; One night homework pass • 11-12 S.T.A.R.s 30 minutes of computer access; Word search book puzzle • 21-30 S.T.A.R.s Leisure books; Teacher helper; Library helper; KidzClub access • 31-40 S.T.A.R.s Blockbuster gift certificate; S.T.A.R store helper; On-campus lunch with staff of your choice • 41-50 S.T.A.R.s Movie pass; Bike ride with staff; Garden time with staff • 51+ S.T.A.R.s Off-campus movie with staff; Off-campus lunch with staff; Picnic in the park with staff

30. Sample Housing Student Rft. • 1-5 S.T.A.R.s Pens or pencils, General school supplies, Candy • 6-10 S.T.A.R.s 15 minutes of computer access, Journals, Crayons • 11-20 S.T.A.R.sBlockbuster gift certificate, On-campus lunch with staff • 21-30 S.T.A.R.s Mr. Bill’s helper, Art project with art teacher, Picnic in the park with staff

31. Results • School – Year 1 - 2 38% decrease in ODRs • School – Year 1 – 3 42% decrease in ODRS • Housing – Baseline – Year 1 30% decrease in behavioral incidents • Housing – Baseline – Year 2 35% decrease in behavioral incidents • Currently, lower numbers of ODRs and incidents • SET – for the school setting continues to be above minimum 80/80

32. Focus Groups • Staff (teachers and unit supervisors) themes • Promotes positive behavior management • Incentives help with motivation • Improved short- and long-term behavior • Implementation suggestions (materials, STAR store, consistency • Student themes • Fosters transition to less restrictive level of care • Improvement in daily lives • Improved motivation

33. * Individual functional behavior assessments and intervention plans * 1:1 therapeutic interventions * Medical or mental health crises * Check in/Check out * Choice-making * Focused positive praise * Intensive academic supports * Targeted group therapy * S.T.A.R.S program * Evidence-based interventions implemented with fidelity

34. Lessons Learned • Facility systems not interested at same time • School first then units • Disconnected data sources • No baseline school data available, units used own system • 24/7 concept a challenge • Staff turnover • Training, buy-in, implementation, fidelity • Secondary and tertiary interventions a challenge • For the units

35. Want to implement? • “Leadership team to actively coordinate implementation efforts • An organizational umbrella composed of adequate funding, broad visibility, and consistent political support, • A foundation for sustained and broad scale implementation - those who can coach implementation and train on specific practices, • A system of ongoing evaluation and provision of performance-based feedback to implementers, and • Small group of sites that demonstrate viability” • Nelson, Sprague, Jolivette, Smith, & Tobin, 2009, p. 488

36. Words from the Field • Start small • Obtain endorsement & support at the state level • Link to an ongoing statewide PBS or related initiative • Adapt a data collection & decision model • Incorporate PBS into an existing treatment or discipline model, if compatible • Nelson, Sprague, Jolivette, Smith, & Tobin, 2009

38. Contact: • C. Michael Nelson, Ed.D.cpdmiken@email.uky.edu • Kristine Jolivette, Ph.D. kjolivette@gsu.edu