Kristine Jolivette, Ph.D. Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. Brenda Scheuermann, Ph.D.

1. The Status of PBIS in Secure Juvenile Justice Settings and Next Steps: Perspectives from Researchers Kristine Jolivette, Ph.D. Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. Brenda Scheuermann, Ph.D. C. Michael Nelson, Ed.D. Eugene Wang, Ph.D.

2. Who are we incarcerating? • 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

3. Questions • Why do these troubled and disabled youth end up in the juvenile justice system? • How does the system attempt to address their needs? • What are their post-incarceration outcomes? • Is PBIS a better approach?

4. 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

5. Recidivism and 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).

6. Why PBIS in Secure Care? • 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

7. Status of PBIS in JJ Settings • Two large initiatives • Texas PBIS statewide project to implement SWPBIS in each long-term secure facility • IES grant in facilities in Arizona, California, Georgia, and Oregon • Other states interested • Many facilities state they are using PBIS – not clear if accurate or across tiers • Limited empirical data on implementation • This group is in the process of a national survey of all juvenile justice and alternative education settings on PBIS implementation

8. Issues with Extension and Possible Solutions • We have collectively faced common issuesand questions when attempting to extend PBIS into JJ settings which will be described • We offer possible solutions to these common issues

9. Missions of Safety and Security • Primary mission of JJ settings is the safety and security of its youth, staff, and visitors 24/7 in all facility environments • For example – • ‘right to live in a safe, orderly environment’ • ‘value the safety of the youth in our care’ • ‘protect the community’

10. Missions of Safety and Security • Questions related to how PBIS and safety/security mission have arisen • Does PBIS weaken/threaten safety/security? • Does PBIS undermine staff authority? • Does PBIS remove all consequences? • Does PBIS put the youth ‘in charge’?

11. Missions of Safety and Security • Common language – safety, predictability, consistency, and positivity • Unified with consistent language/values – common set of expectations for all youth and staff • Clarifies and reduces need for consequences per facility procedures • Fewer behavioral incidents • Higher staff satisfaction • Data used to make decisions

12. Incentive Programs versus Contingent Reinforcement • Linked to safety and security concerns • Questions about youth and staff reinforcement in facility-wide PBIS • How is this different from our level systems? • What is the difference between our incentive programs and PBIS reinforcement? • Incentives/reinforcement same thing – it’s a safety and security concern • Hoarding of treats • Stealing/bartering of treats • Great hiding place for contraband

13. Incentive Programs versus Contingent Reinforcement • Links youth and staff behavior to specific reinforcement per FW-PBIS expectations -> contingent • Clarifies what youth truly need secondary-tier level systems -> promotes efficiency and effectiveness • Reinforcement purposeful and planned -> predictable and fairly given • Reinforcement consumable by youth who earned it • Through supervision • Through variety of privileges, activities, status/recognition, praise, tangibles

14. Transient Youth and Staff Populations • Questions related to contextual variable of transciency of entire population • How will new staff know what to do? • How will new youth know how to behave? • Youth are not here long enough for change to happen so why should we do this?

15. Transient Youth and Staff Populations • Broad PBIS content in new staff training -> rest is ‘on the job’for unique FW-PBIS per facility • Embed FW-PBIS plan content in youth intake processes • Teaching, modeling, and reinforcing expected, positive behavior will promote positive youth behavior while IN facility and AFTER • Use of a coaching model would assist in sustainability

16. Revolving Door of Initiatives Impairs Clarity, Efficiency and Efficacy • AE programs suffer from a “revolving door” of initiatives based on sometimes differing and sometimes coordinated theories and research traditions • Criminality/delinquency theories • Cognitive-Behavioral • Behavioral • ????? • Most programs are a loosely coordinated “mashup” resulting in low implementation fidelity

17. Differing Views on ‘Tiered” Approaches • View 1: Children and youth in AE programs are all “tier III” • View 2: The public health model provides a multi-tiered structure to select, coordinate, and integrate evidence-based interventions and practices to address the range of needs of those who present with (in different proportions) various risk factors, health problems, and problem behaviors • (Eddy et al., 2002; Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchland-Martella, 2007;H. M. Walker et al., 1996).  

18. Integrated models can work • Integrated models of prevention and treatment, which consist of multiple independent strategies or programs merged into a single intervention, have the potential to address some of the significant challenges facing juvenile justice programs in a way that does not compromise integrity.

20. 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

21. Implementing Positive Behavior Supports in Juvenile Corrections Settings • Our job is to collaborate with line, supervisory, treatment and education staff members and administrators to make sure we understand: • How the PBIS framework aligns with current systems and practices • Contextual factors (24/7 nature of setting, intensity & complexity of youth needs, what staff need to feel successful, etc.) • We are assessing the feasibility, intent to use, and social validity of the materials and procedures Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.

22. PBIS Approach • PBIS approach has had a large degree of success in school settings, alternative education settings, and with youth with high levels of need • Prevents problem behaviors • Increases positive behaviors (social and academic) • We believe the PBIS framework will help: • Enhance the day to day operations in the facility (education, corrections, mental health), staff member satisfaction, and youth outcomes • Alignment, of procedures, efficiency, & tools for measuring implementation fidelity and effectiveness • Validate the practices already in place Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.

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. Fidelity of Implementation of PBIS

25. JJ Organizational Hierarchies • Organizational Structure • Complicated, changing hierarchies/structure • Possibly competing goals of education, security, treatment • Changing leadership and direction/mission • Budgetary constraints • Systems change? • Frequent changes in direction and priorities (security vs. treatment, security vs. education) • Facility-wide change vs. education-only change

26. Data • Raw data – necessity and difficulties • Raw vs. pre-aggregated • Data structure • Data accuracy/integrity • Unintentional inaccuracy • Intentional inaccuracy • Data analysis and level of aggregation • Aggregated by facility or time ignores individual youth variability • Individual youth variability extremely complex because of high youth turnover

27. Next Steps for PBIS in JJ Settings • Determine scope of implementation—national survey • Establish network • Measure, evaluate impact • Reliable, valid measures of behavior • Comparison studies • Replication • Dissemination • Social marketing

28. Thank You • Kristine Jolivette – kjolivette@gsu.edu • Jeff Sprague – jeffs@uoregon.edu • Brenda Scheuermann – brenda@txstate.edu • Mike Nelson – mike.nelson@uky.edu • Eugene Wang – eugene.wang@ttu.edu