C. Michael Nelson, Ed. D. University of Kentucky ( emeritus) National TA Center on PBIS

1. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and Youth Involvement in the Juvenile Justice SystemLos Angeles Unified School District Local District 7 Best Practices Symposium November, 2011 C. Michael Nelson, Ed. D. University of Kentucky (emeritus) National TA Center on PBIS

2. Advanced Organizer • Background—Status of SWPBIS implementation • Characteristics & Needs of Incarcerated Youth • Responding to these needs through PBIS • Preventing entry into the system • Improving outcomes for youth in the system • Implementing PBIS in Secure Care Settings • Exemplar • Resources

3. Number of Schools Implementing SWPBIS since 2000 (Aug. 2011) 15,955

4. Schools Implementing SWPBIS by State August, 2011

5. Proportion of School Implementing SWPBIS by State August, 2011

6. Who are we Incarcerating?Youth in Juvenile Corrections • 2/3-3/4 of incarcerated youth have these characteristics that relate to behavior: • Special education classification • Mental disorders • Drug and alcohol abuse • History of abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence J. Gagnon, 2008

7. 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?

8. Risk Factors - Delinquency Life Domains • Individual • Family • School • Community • Peer Relations School • Weak academics • Low school involvement • Truancy • Suspension • Expulsion • Dropout

9. Preventing Entry through SWPBIS • Quality educational interventions may constitute the most effective and economical protective factors against delinquency (Center on Crime, Communities, & Culture, 1997) • Therefore, keeping youth engaged in school is a logical prevention. • Improving school climate and youth behavior works toward that goal.

10. PBIS and School Engagement • 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; FL PBS Project, 2009); • classroom disruption (Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004); • negative student-adult interactions (Clarke, Worcester, Dunlap, Murray, & Bradely-Klug, 2002) • Increases in: • academic engaged time (Putnam, Horner, & Algozzine, 2007 • academic achievement (Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; Horner et al., 2009) • perceived school safety (Horner et al., 2009)

11. PBIS and School –to-Prison Pipeline Reform • PBIS is promoted by advocacy groups, specifically to address school-to-prison pipeline reform • Southern Poverty Law Center • Appleseed • American Civil Liberties Union • Public Counsel Law Center

12. KY Safe Schools Data Project(Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline)

13. Why PBS in Secure Facilities? • Effective and efficient alternative to harsh, inconsistent, and ineffective disciplinary methods in many juvenile justice facilities • punishment mentality, • inconsistency among staff • Decisions about discipline not linked to data on youth behavior

14. 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 • Youth with educational disabilities, poor literacy skills make significantly slower progress • Average literacy levels of incarcerated youth range from 5th-9th grade • Education is an add-on

15. The Co$t of Incarceration Penn State or The State Pen It’s your money!

16. Recidivism for Youth with Disabilities • Recidivism: re-arrest, re-incarceration • All incarcerated youth: > 50% (Lipsey, 2009; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) • 69% of youth with disabilities were reincarcerated within 1 year of release (Johnston, 2003) • Youth with disabilities were 2.8 times more likely to return to corrections 6 months post-release and 1.8 times more likely to return at 1 year (Bullis et al., 2002) • 34.4% of youth in juvenile detention and state corrections systems were identified as disabled (Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D., & Poirier, 2005).

17. Best Practices in Juvenile Delinquency Treatment • Assess risks & needs: • Use research-based tools to determine likelihood of re-offense and to identify factors amenable to treatment and risk reduction. • Enhance Intrinsic Motivation: • Apply specific communication techniques to identify an offender’s own reasons for change and to engage offenders as partners in their treatment. • Target Interventions: • Structure treatment, supervision and responses to offender behavior based on their risk level, needs and personal characteristics. • Skill train With Directed practice: • Use cognitive behavioral treatment methods to disrupt criminal thinking and provide offenders with the opportunity to practice and apply pro-social behaviors. (US Department of Justice, 2011)

18. Best Practices in Juvenile Delinquency Treatment • Increase positive reinforcement: • Emphasize, affirm and reward compliant behavior to promote pro-social behavior change. While offenders are still sanctioned for non-compliant behavior, a greater focus is placed on recognizing and rewarding the positive. • Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities: • Connect offenders to pro-social family, friends and activities in the community • Measure relevant processes/practices: • Collect data on the effectiveness of your work to answer the questions: • Are we doing evidence-based work? • Are we doing it well? • Is it leading to desired outcomes? • Provide Measurement Feedback: • Use data to provide feedback to systems, organizations, teams and individuals with the goal of improving practice. (US Department of Justice, 2011)

19. PBIS Best Practices • Early Identification • Risk / needs assessment at primary and secondary levels • Reinforcement system • Teach, acknowledge positive behaviors • Implement continuum of consequences • Continuum of supports • Supports based on level of need, student characteristics (function of problem behavior) • Explicit instruction & practice in social expectations

20. PBIS Best Practices • Reinforcement system • Climate of preventative / positive, parent involvement • Facility-wide expectations to establish positive climate, • Involve all stakeholders • Data based decision-making • Are we doing what we said we’d do? • Is it making a difference? • Data sharing • Share data with stakeholders on valued outcomes

21. Best Practices Overlap USDJ PBIS Early Identification Reinforcement system Continuum of supports Explicit instruction & practice in social expectations Reinforcement system Climate of preventative / positive, parent involvement Data based decision-making Data sharing • Assess risks & needs • Enhance Intrinsic Motivation • Target Interventions • Skill train With Directed practice • Increase positive reinforcement • Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities • Measure relevant processes/practices • Provide Measurement Feedback

22. PBIS Implementation in Alternative Settings • Limited experimental studies implementing PBIS in AE, residential, or JJ settings • Unknown application in residential settings • TX legislated state-wide implementation in all secure care facilities • 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)

23. PBIS Approach • Strengths: • Clarifies expectations • Provides structure for youth and staff members • Data based decision making increases accountability and protects youth • Weaknesses: • Often mistaken for it’s parts and not as the whole model • May be viewed as competing with other models or programs • The proactive / preventative nature may be perceived as incongruent with Juvenile Justice practices (e.g., corrections)

24. Considerations for Secure Settings • 24-hour day • Multiple programs in a facility • Multidisciplinary staff; diverse levels of training • Primary focus is security • Education personnel not in charge of discipline • Decisions re: youth behavior aren’t data-driven

25. Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES DATA Supporting Decision Making PRACTICES Evidence-based, preventive. Supporting Youth Behavior SYSTEMS Supporting Staff Behavior & Implementation Fidelity

26. Systems Issues • Disconnect between: • Educational programming • Housing unit programming • Security programming • Mental health programming • Recreation programming • Other programming • Must work together to form a seamless system for youth K. Jolivette, 2009

27. Systems Issues • Hierarchies and politics within and across programs • Power • History • Changing adult behavior = a positive change in youth behavior • Make “peace” with the history and move forward K. Jolivette, 2009

28. Data Issues • Different types of and reporting mechanisms for data collected • Anecdotal, frequency, duration • Daily, weekly, monthly, semester reports • A common “merger” of data collected required • Limited sharing of data • Across staff within and outside of programs • A shared data set with a schedule for sharing • “Big Picture” of what’s going on often missing • Disconnect between morning, school, lunch, after-school, afternoon, evening, nighttime events • Common “debriefing” on a regular basis K. Jolivette, 2009

29. Practice Issues • “Saboteurs” • Lack of “buy-in” by ALL staff across systems • Administrator for each program sets the tone • Needs to be a job expectation • Use of non-scientific strategies, interventions, and curricula • Lack of “knowing” or time to investigate/staying with current practices • Effectiveness related to the practices employed • Conflicting & low expectations of youth • Lack of administrative and staff consensus on strategies/interventions • A team (reps. from each system) needs to take the lead • Expectations change dependent on the environment, staff, time of day, etc. • Consistency is a key in prevention • Common policies and procedures • Trying to catch youth being “bad” (punishment focus) • Equitable reinforcement for positive social and academic behavior a must • Freedom, control, independence • Reinforcement for implementation by staff a must

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

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

32. Are these proportions characteristic of youth in facility? 32% ~53% Tertiary Preven-tion ~ 23% Secondary Prevention ~24% Primary Prevention

33. Tertiary Prevention: Multiple discipline reports per month Or, are these? ~5% ~15% Secondary Prevention: 2-5 discipline reports per month Primary Prevention: 1 or 0 discipline reports per month ~80% of Youth

35. Continuum of Support for ALL Anger man. Prob Sol. Ind. work Adult rel. Attend. Leadership Peer interac Label intervention…not youth Dec 7, 2007

36. Implementation Process • Establish a leadership team • Secure administrator support • Secure a commitment from at least 80% of the staff • Conduct self assessment • Create an implementation action plan • Regularly collect and analyze data • Use data to make decisions • Evaluate impact • Program for sustainability

37. Exemplar • Illinois Youth Center380 boys 13-21Medium-maximum securityCorrectional model

38. Illinois Youth Center (IYC): Team/Resources • What does it take to do PBIS? • People: Staff must be committed • Equipment: Very little…computers for data collection…printers…AV system • Locations: Throughout the school areas at IYC Harrisburg. • Support: From the facility administrators, the school district, and the Illinois PBIS network.

39. Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive • Teams – Teachers and Students • Orientation of Youth • Reinforcement System • Social Skill Lessons • Discipline Policy • Professional Development

40. Check-In with a Teacher • One-on-One • Wrap-Around: Use the ‘Community’ • Involve School Psychologists • Confinement/Segregation • Behavior Intervention Programs • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response

41. What can PBIS do? IYC-Harrisburg results

42. 70% reduction

43. 77% reduction

44. 60% reduction

45. 86% reduction

47. www.pbis.org Juvenile Justice