Transcript Slide 1

School-wide PBS and
School-based Mental Health:
Integration Opportunities
in Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
November, 2006
Lucille Eber, ([email protected])
IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org
Resources:

(Fixen, et al, 2005)“Implementation Research: A
Synthesis of the Literature

http://mim.fmhi.usf.edu
(Kutash et al, 2006) “School-based Mental Health:
An Empirical Guide for Decision-Makers”
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu

(Bazelon Center, 2006)“Way to Go”….School
Success for Children with Mental Health Care
Needs
www.bazelon.org

www.pbisillinois.org

www.pbis.org
A Key Question:

How do we move from “expert driven”, onestudent at a time, reactive approaches to
building capacity within schools to support
the behavior/mental health of ALL students?
The Role of the Behavior Specialist or
Behavior support Team??




Reactive?
Too little, too late?
Integrity of interventions?
Structures to ensure prevention as well as
effective interventions?
OR
Ensuring/guiding capacity of local school staff to be
behaviorally competent?
Students with Complex Needs….
Need access to and can benefit
from all 3 levels of SW-PBS
 And may need additional support
from beyond school-based services
as well.

School-Wide Systems for Student Success
A Response to Intervention Model
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Tertiary Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Small Group Interventions
• Some Individualizing
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
1-5%
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Tertiary Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
• Small Group Interventions
• Some Individualizing
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports
“PBIS” is a research-based systems
approach designed to enhance the
capacity of schools to…
 effectively educate all students, including
students with challenging social behaviors
 adopt & sustain the use of effective instructional
practices
(Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai et al., 1999; Sugai & Horner, 1994, 1999)
“Big Idea”
‫٭‬
Goal is to establish host environments
that support adoption, sustain use, &
expansion of evidence-based
practices
(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
Going to Scale with
Effective Systems/Practices
If you invest, do it so it will last 10 years!
1. Implement with high fidelity
2. Must be durable
3. Must be sustained (in place 5 years)
4. Delivered by typical agents
5. Outcome data used to adapt
6. Modify to local setting
7. Establish system
Implementation emphasizes:
 Team-based planning & problem solving
 Instructional approaches; data-based
 Active administrator support/participation
 Long-term action planning
 Staff commitment
 On-going professional development
What SW-PBS is…




Evidenced based practices imbedded in a
systems change process
A prevention continuum
A process with conceptual foundations in
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)
A framework for organizing mental health
supports and services
What does PBIS look like?
SW-PBS (primary)

>80% of students can tell you what is
expected of them & give behavioral
example because they have been
taught, actively supervised, practiced,
& acknowledged.

Positive adult-to-student interactions
exceed negative

Data- & team-based action planning &
implementation are operating.

Administrators are active participants.

Full continuum of behavior support is
available to all students
Secondary & Tertiary

Team-based coordination & problem
solving

Local specialized behavioral capacity

Function-based behavior support
planning

Person-centered, contextually &
culturally relevant

Capacity for wraparound facilitation

District/regional behavioral capacity

Linked to SW-PBS practices &
systems
Universal Example

Leadership Team identifies need


Lessons taught school-wide (all staff all kids)





Response to high frequency of bullying (data)
Direct instruction linked to “Respect” expectation
Practice activities in all settings
Prompts in settings (i.e. playground, halls, classroom)
Recognition of skills being demonstrated
Assessment of outcomes

Has bullying decreased?
Questions to Guide IL PBIS Implementation:
How do we decide what data to collect/examine/use?
How do we use the data to help us decide how to spend our time?





Implementation
Effect
Integrity/Fidelity
Capacity
Sustainability
If we train schools, do they implement?
If schools implement, do students/schools benefit?
Do students with greater needs benefit from implementation?
If schools implement, is there fidelity?
If schools implement, is there sustainability? Over time?
L
Evaluation Linked to Implementation
 Implementation Surveys (all 3 levels)
 Team Checklists, Coaches Checklists
 School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)
 Levels of implementation & Profiles
 Existing School-based data:
Behavior
ODRs
ISSs
OSSs
Tardies
Attendance
On task-Academic
Academics
Homework
Class work
Grades
ISAT
Achievement Test Scores
System-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)



Research quality tool for assessing
Universal/School-wide PBIS
External person spend 2 hours at school,
reviewing documents, interviewing staff,
interviewing students.
PBIS is “in place” when with a score of at
least 80% Total and 80% on Teaching subscale.
School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)





Assess features that are in
place
Determine annual goals for
team
Evaluate on-going efforts
Design and revise
procedures
Compare efforts from year
to year







Expectation defined
Expectation taught
System for rewarding
behavior expectations
System for responding to
behavioral violationa
Monitoring and decisionmaking
Management
District-level support
Does PBIS Implementation Result in
Changes in Student Behavior?




Is there a reduction in Office Discipline
Referrals when PBIS is implemented?
Do students and faculty perceive the
environment as more safe when PBIS
procedures are implemented?
Are there savings in faculty/student
time?
Are there gains in academic
performance?
Establish Procedures for Data
Collection and Analysis
PBIS teams CONSISTENTLY review the
following data/graphs:
The Average # of referrals:
 Per day per month
 By type of behavior
 By location
 By time of day
 By student
Office Referrals per Day per Month
1994-1995
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sep
Nov
Jan
Months
Mar
May
Office Referrals by Behavior
1994-1995
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Behaviors
O ffice R efe rrals b y L o c atio n
1 9 9 4 -1 9 9 5
1 4 00
1 2 00
1 0 00
800
600
400
200
0
C la ss roo m
Bus
L o ca tio n
Major ODR’s by Time - Mid Year
(9/2/02-3/01/03)
O ffic e R e fe rra ls b y S tu d e n t
1994-19 95
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
7
13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79
N o . of R eferrals
Illinois: Partial vs. Full Implementation 05-06
100%
Students per day
ODRs Per 100
9%
6%
90%
11%
12%
6+
80%
79%
83%
70%
60%
2 to 5
0-1
n=61 Schools
n=91 Schools
50%
Partial Implementation
Full Implementation
Level of Implementation
Percentage
L. Elementary School Partial Implementation to Full
Implementation 04-05 to 05-06
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2004-2005- Partial
Implementation
2005-2006 - Full
Implementation
Level of Implementation
2004-2005- Partial Implementation
2005-2006 - Full Implementation
6+
14.15%
0.25%
2 to 5
28.54%
4.33%
0 to 1
57.30%
95.40%
Percentage
S. School - Partial Implementation to Full Implementation
04-05 to 05-06
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004-2005 Partial
Implementation
2005-2006 Full
Implementation
Level of Implementation
2004-2005 Partial Implementation
2005-2006 Full Implementation
% 6 and up ODR's
6.95%
2.20%
% 2 to 5 ODR's
15.25%
3.90%
% 0 to 1 ODR's
77.80%
93.90%
factors
Risk & protective
Comparing School Safety Survey Partial vs. Fully Implementation FY06
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Risk Ratio
Protectiv e Ratio
Partial (n=37)
Full 80/80 (n=40)
Students Who Meet or Exceed Reading Standards
on 3rd Grade ISAT
64
% of students
65
60
58
55
PBIS Not in Place (n=84)
PBIS in Place (n=112)
Schools
Schools
MARK TWAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL
Kankakee, IL
DISCIPLINARY REFERRALS FOR CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
300
268
200
143
150
113
100
3rd Year
PBIS
50
71
2nd Year
of PBIS
1st Year
of PBIS
# OF DISCIPLINE REFERRALS
250
15
0
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06 (TO DATE)
NUMBER OF SUSPENSIONS
(MARK TWAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL - KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS)
60
54
50
10
15
THIRD YEAR
OF PBIS
20
32
SECOND YEAR OF PBIS
30
FIRST YEAR OF PBIS
# OF SUSPENSIONS
40
0
0
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06 (TO DATE)
NUMBER OF STUDENT REFERRALS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
(MARK TWAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL - KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS)
18
16
16
12
6
4
2
5
THIRD YEAR OF
PBIS
8
SECOND YEAR OF PBIS
10
11
FIRST YEAR OF PBIS
# OF REFERRALS FOR SPEC ED
14
1
0
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06 (TO DATE)
ISAT 00-05 MARK TWAIN - % MEETS AND EXCEEDS
100.0%
90.0%
AFTER PBIS
AFTER PBIS
BEFORE PBIS
BEFORE PBIS
AFTER PBIS
55.0%
69.2%
46.7%
54.8%
45.0%
28.8%
24.4%
23.0%
30.0%
24.0%
40.0%
10.0%
0.0%
MATH
2001
2002
2003
2005
20.0%
READING
2000
2004
36.0%
42.0%
50.0%
41.5%
48.9%
60.0%
47.0%
58.9%
61.7%
70.0%
72.3%
80.0%
52.6%
BEFORE PBIS
WRITING
Number of Students
Six Year Comparison of
Sparta School District
Least Restrictive Environment
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1999-00
2000-01
Monitor
2001-02
2002-03
Resource
2003-04
2004-05
Self contained
Dewey Elementary:
100%
45
# Students
40
78%
80%
60%
30
20
10
60%
27
40%
16
20%
5
0
2003-04
0%
2004-05
Students in SPED < 21% of Day
Students in SPED 21-60% of Day
ISAT Scores
ISAT Score
50
Changes in Least Restrictive
Environment
Opportunity for MH integration
through School-based Leadership
Team
System and Data Structures Needed:



leadership team is in place…
Team looks at range of universal data (not just
ORD’s)
Capacity to get 80-90% of staff consistently
implementing inventions
MH Integration opportunity
at the Universal Level



High % of youth come from multiple
homeless shelters in the neighborhood
High % of kids have experienced
death/violence
High % of suicide threats/attempts
Does School-wide PBIS
increase school’s capacity
to “catch” and respond to
MH needs of students sooner?
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports
A Response to Intervention Model
Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Analyze
Secondary
Interventions
Student Data
Small group interventions
Interviews,
Questionnaires, etc.
Observations, FBA
Group
Tertiary
Multiple settings
Multiple Perspectives
Multi-Disciplinary
Assessment & Analysis
Individualized Interventions
(simple)
Complex individualized
interventions
Team-Based Wraparound
Interventions
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Number of Secondary/Tertiary
Interventions Reported - 04-05
Number of Interventions
Reported
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Full Implementation
Partial
Implementation
No-SET Data
Level of Implementation
Average Self-Report on Secondary/Tertiary
Intervention Impact (Scale from 1- 6)
4.65
Average Rating
4.6
4.55
4.5
2004-2005
4.45
4.4
4.35
Full Implementation
Partial
Implementation
No SET
Level of Implementation
Total Average
reported
# of Interventions
Secondary and Tertiary Interventions Reported on the IL
School Profile Form for Fully and Partially Implementing
Schools ( FY05 n = 197; FY06 n = 135)
200
150
100
50
0
2004-05
2005-06
Fully Implementation
Partial Implementation
Level of Implementation
No SET Data
reported
# interventions
Number of Individualized Interventions Reported by Level of Fidelity
of PBIS
100
80
60
40
20
0
12
71
SET Met
7
5
Small Group Interventions
24
33
Individualized Interventions
SET Not Met
No SET
Level of PBIS Fidelity
A Unique Secondary Example…






AA males (26) ; 30% of schools ODR’s
Function: Attention/recognition (24)
High status mentors from community
Instruction on individual goals
Modeling social/emotional
skills/responses
“Built in” reinforcement (attention from
high status adults)
Teaching Excellence Academics
Motivation (TEAM)


Meetings to discuss goals
Meetings monthly with a speaker from the community to
discuss topics such as:
 Respect
 Peer Pressure
 Pride
 Discipline
 Goal Setting
 Importance of School
 School/Athletes
 Personal Experiences
Guest Speakers








Sept: Dr. Maurice P. (U of I Professor)
Oct: Mr. Joe S. (State Farm Insurance)
Nov: Reverend D. (Talks Mentoring)
Jan: Mr. Jonathan W. (Champ. Police Officer)
Feb: Mr. C. (School Superintendent)
Mar: Mr. Verdell J. (Basketball Camp Director)
April: Glenn M. (Computer Programmer)
May: Mr. Tracy L. (President of Urban League)
Community Outings/Incentives
•University of Illinois vs. Michigan football game
•University of Illinois vs. Wisconsin basketball game
•Bowling at GT’s Western Bowl
•Chicago Bulls vs. Cleveland Cavaliers basketball game
•Thanksgiving Dinner
•Christmas Celebration/Gathering
•Parkland College tour/class observation
Results of Secondary Intervention



TEAM members represented 19% of all discipline
referrals, (baseline was 26%)
88% (21) had improved behavior/academics
Three (3) attained honor roll status
SOC components embedded in intervention:



Cultural relevancy
Unique Strengths/needs approach
Community resources integrated
Does School-wide PBIS
increase School’s capacity
to identify MH needs and
reach out to families in a
timely manner?
MH Integration Opportunity at
Secondary Level
Screening for MH needs not “caught” via ODR’s

i.
ii.
Use of SSBD
Connections with families early on
Social skills instruction for at-risk students

i.
ii.
More likely to succeed as part of systemic process
Cool tools can be scheduled as follow-up to ensure
transference and generalization
Does School-wide PBIS
increase School’s abilities
to effectively educate
students with more complex
needs?
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
673 schools Grades K-6 (292,021 students)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
6+ ODRs
50%
'2-5 ODRs
40%
'0-1 ODRs
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Students
% Referrals
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
255 schools Grades 6-9 (170,700 students)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Series3
50%
Series2
40%
Series1
30%
20%
10%
0%
% Students
% Referrals
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
67 schools, Grades 9-12 (62,244 students)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
6+ ODRs
50%
'2-5 ODRs
40%
'0-1 ODRs
30%
20%
10%
0%
%Students
% Referrals
Continuum of Support for SecondaryTertiary Level Systems





Targeted group interventions (BEP, Check and Connect, social
or academic skills groups, tutor/homework clubs, etc)
Targeted group with a unique feature for an individual
student
Individualized function based behavior support plan for a
student focused on one specific problem behavior
Behavior Support Plan across all settings (ie: home and
school)
Wraparound:
More complex and comprehensive plan
that address multiple life domain issues across home, school
and community (i.e. basic needs, MH treatment as well as
beahvior/academic intervemtions)
Need for MH Integration……





Age 10 male in BD Class
Excellent teacher; good progress
Teacher frustrated; can’t get him “out”
more
Incidents decrease in frequency but NOT
in intensity (hits head on wall; screams
“hates himself”)
Needs other supports to deal with past
trauma he has experienced?
Missed Opportunity for Positive
Behavior Support….??




Kindergartner; tantrums; hurts small
animals
In principal’s office by noon daily
“Waiting” to be accepted for MH
assessment
No FBA/BIP done


Although “transitions” were a known trigger
School became immobilized by the “setting
events” (i.e. possible psychiatric disorder)
Planning at the Tertiary Level
Individualized Planning
Facilitator Skills
Supports Across
Multiple Life Domains
The Art of Engagement
Family Voice
Blending Perspectives
Science of
Interventions
Data-Based
Decision-making via
FBA
SIMEO
Emphasis on
Multiple Life
Domain Needs
Team-Building:
Home, School and
Community
Emphasis on
Unique Strengths
Tertiary Level System Components





Facilitate/guide an individualized team planning process
Family/student/teacher ownership of plan
Access full range of school and community support services acros
life domains
Home, school, community settings
Individualized academic and behavior interventions are integrated
into comprehensive wraparound plans.
Individualized Teams at the
Tertiary Level

Are unique to the individual child
& family


Meeting Process



Blend the family’s supports with the
school representatives who know the
child best
Meet frequently
Regularly develop & review
interventions
Facilitator Role


Role of bringing team together
Role of blending perspectives
What is Wraparound?


Wraparound is a process for developing
family-centered teams and plans that are
strength and needs based

(not deficit based)

across multiple settings and life domains.
Wraparound plans include natural supports,
are culturally relevant, practical and
realistic.
What is Wraparound?
(cont’d)


Blending perspectives of team members
results in a variety of traditional and
nontraditional strategies that are directly
linked to agreed upon outcomes.
The wraparound process creates a context
for effective implementation of researchbased behavioral, academic and clinical
interventions.
Wraparound and PBIS
The wraparound process is a key
component on the continuum of a schoolwide system of PBIS.
Value-base:

Quality of Life; Voice/Ownership
Data-based Decision-Making:

Efficient & Effective Actions
Value Base







Build on strengths to meet needs
One family-one plan
Increased parent choice
Increased family independence
Support for youth in context of families
Support for families in context of community
Unconditional: Never give up
P.Miles, 2004
Implementing Wraparound :
Key Elements Needed for Success
 Engaging students, families & teachers
 Team development & team ownership
 Ensuring student/family/teacher voice
 Getting to real (big) needs
 Effective interventions
 Serious use of strengths
 Natural supports
 Focus on needs vs. services
 Monitoring progress & sustaining
 System support buy-in
Features of Wraparound:

used with individual students

plans reflect voice, priorities of youth and family

based on unique youth and family needs

culturally relevant teams and plans

built upon youth, family and provider strengths

uses traditional and non-traditional interventions

encompasses multiple life domains
Features of Wraparound (cont.):




resources are blended; must be flexible
services are planned, implemented, and
evaluated by a team
team supports youth, family and providers
unconditional - if the plan doesn’t work, change
the plan
Wraparound
Is:






An ongoing planning
process used by
A team of people
Who come together
Around family strengths &
needs
To create a unique plan of
interventions & supports
Based upon a process of
unconditional care – no
blame, no shame
Is not:






A set of services
A one or two time meeting
A special education
evaluation
An individual school
counselor who links with the
family or student
The presence of flexible
funds
Only for families and
students we judge as
“workable”
Four Phases of Wraparound
Implementation
Team Preparation


Get people ready to be a team
Complete strengths/needs chats
Initial Plan Development


Hold initial planning meetings
Develop a team “culture”
Plan Implementation & Refinement


Hold team meetings to review plans
Modify, adapt & adjust team plan
Plan Completion & Transition


Define good enough
“Unwrap”
DATA: The BIG Question
Can teams use data-based decisionmaking to prioritize needs, design
strategies, & monitor progress of the
child/family team?
more efficient teams, meetings, and plans?
 less reactive (emotion-based) actions?
more strategic actions?
more effective outcomes?
longer-term commitment to maintain success?
Example of
Getting to Strengths and Needs at Baseline
Using Data and Voice & Choice
“Roman”
Using the Data to get to Strengths and Needs
4
Home
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
Baseline
Controls Anger
3 months
Has friends
6 months
Gets along with children
School
Baseline
Controls Anger
3 months
Has friends
6 months
Gets along with children
Challenges:
 Engaging the “disengaged” (youth,family, teacher…)
Differentiating between needs & services
 Professionals wanting family to “comply”
 Keeping team strength-focused while problemsolving
 Family unable/unwilling to identify natural supports
 Staying “at the table” long enough to get change
 Using data-based decision-making to design
interventions
 Incongruent system habits (“schools can’t do that”)
Coaching:
Keeping the team “working”



Even if the placement changes
Don’t let one “sub-system” dominate
Have the team embrace them as partners


“Better reintegration plan”
As expectations change (i.e. academics)


Be in classroom>>>to participate like others
Give him choices (“He surprises us”)
Jacob
Reasons for Wrap Referral
Baseline
Poor school attendance
Tardiness
nd grade classroom
Refusal to participate in 2
activities. Did work independently in
office/partial
school days.
Previous hospitalization (Bipolar Disorder)
nd grade year
Retention – currently repeating 2
Failing Grades
Family Support Needs

“Jacob”
Home/School/Community Tool
Getting to Strengths & Needs at Baseline: Family Voice
“Jacob”
“Jacob”
“Jacob”
“Jacob”
Educational Information Tool
Time 3
Example of Advanced Skill Set:



How to recognize when teams are trying to
make parents “comply” with interventions
How to redirect teams back to the big
need and other ways to accomplish it
How to keep the team at the “table”, even
through the ups and downs
IL TOT Aug ‘06
Functional Assessment Pathway
Setting Event
IT-F
Triggering
Event or
Antecedent
Maintaining
Consequence
Problem
Behavior
THE FUNCTION
“Get something”
“Get away from
Something”
When the Setting Event is
perceived to be out of their
control, the team often becomes
immobilized
SIMEO FY 2006 Study Cohort
Placement Risk
High
Risk
2
1.75
1.78
26% Decrease
1.5
1.5
14% Decrease
1.3
1.25
Low/ 1
No
Risk
Baseline
N=19
Time2
N=19
Time 3
N=10
Baseline-Time 2: P<.08, t=1.84, df=18; Time 2-Time 3: P<.443, t=.802, df=9; Base-Time3: P<.193; t=1.40, df=9
School Risk Behaviors Substantially Decline for Student
Engaged in Wrap
Avg # of episodes
4
3.87
2.84
3
2.37
2
OSSs
1.38
1
0.79
0.5
0
Baseline (n=19)
ODRs
Time 2 (n=19)
Time 3 (n=8)
Positive Classroom Behavior & Academic
Achievement Linked
4
Always
2.8
3
2.21
2.45
2.83
2
2.13
Never
2.19
1
Baseline (n=26)
Time 2 (n=26)
Classroom Behav ior Functioning
Time 3 (n=12)
Academic Achiev ement
SIMEO FY 2006: Home School Community-Tool
Emotional Functioning Sub-Scale
High
Strength
4
3.5
Somewhat
Strength
3
2.54
2.5
Somewhat
Need
2
2.36
2.15
3.04
2.98
2.79
2.46
2.38
1.9
1.5
High
Need
1
Baseline
N=21
Community
Time2
N=21
Home
Time 3
N=10
School
Red=
Statistically
Significant
Changes
Building Capacity for Wraparound
in Schools
 Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools
 Identify and train facilitators
 Train other school personnel about wrap teams
 Ongoing practice refinement and skill development
 Review data around outcomes of teams and plans
Methods of Coaching Facilitators









Wrap meeting preparation session
Observational feedback of wrap meeting
Co-facilitation of wrap meeting
Face-to-face task/skill set meeting
Role play
Debriefing after wrap meetings
Case review with other facilitators
Group mentoring/consultation
Telephone question/answering sessions
Worcester, MA
What’s Different for
Practitioners (schools)?
•Data-based decision-making across
settings/life domains.
•Integrated teams with MH and other
community partners
•Natural supports and unique strengths are
emphasized in team and plan development.
• Youth/family access, voice, ownership are
critical features.
• Plans include supports for adults/family as well
as youth.
What’s New with SOC/Wraparound?






Skill set specificity
Focus on intervention design/effectiveness
Integration with school-wide PBS
Phases to guide implementation/supervision
Data-based decision-making (tools)
Integrity/fidelity assessment (tools)
Challenges at Tertiary Level




Requires complex skills
Need to find internalizers sooner (SSBD)
Data is buried in family/student stories
Capacity to stay “at the table” long enough to
effect change



Engage key players,
Establish voice and ownership
Translate stories into data to guide plans
How We Build Local Capacity:
Develop Coaching Capacity

Coaches are school personnel who have:



Fluency with systems & practices
Capacity to delivery high level technical
assistance
Capacity to sustain teams in efforts to
implement systems & practices
Why Redefine Staff
Roles to Coach?
Sustainability & Accountability








Hands-on technical assistance
Guide problem solving
Local training
Team start-up & sustainability
Public relations/communications
Support local leadership
Local coordination of resources
Provide prompts & reinforcers
Examples of Coaches Roles:
•
•
•
•
SYSTEM
Prepare Teams for Training
Support Team Leaders over time
Assist with faculty buy-in
Support ongoing team meeting
•structure/agenda/next steps
DATA
Assist with data analysis and use of data
• collection strategies and priorities/focus for analysis
• revise current strategies
• decision-making strategies
PRACTICES
•Support use of effective practices
•Leadership on targeted and intensive (wraparound)
•Develop behavioral, wraparound skills in school personnel
PBIS External Coaches by Title
over a Two Year Period
35
31
30
25
24
22
20
18
17
14
15
14
11
12
9
10
9
5
5
0
Clinical Staff
District
Admin
District PBIS
PBIS
Position
Coordinators
ROE/ISC
Special Ed.
Admin
2004
2005
Ongoing Staff Development:
Components to Consider:
•
•
•
•
Volume
Quality
Consistency
Dosage/practice
Building-level Commitments
 Three-five year focus to get sustainable change
 Active administrative support and participation
 Administrative leadership for PBIS teams
 Commitment from staff (80%)
 Ongoing communication and support with staff
 Completion and use of data collection (discipline
and academic data, survey, checklists)
 Staff participation in ongoing training
District Commitments Needed:
 District leadership team
 Coaching FTE
 District Improvement Plan
 Resources allocated
 Staff development prioity-ongoing
 Data collection and use-ongoing
 Implementation of research-based practices
Specialized services as well as general ed
Universal Team Training
 Initiating Leadership Team
 Developing Action Plan
 Engaging ALL Staff & families
 Classroom & non-classroom strategies
 Using data to make decisions
 Keeping teams moving
Secondary Level
Training

Problem solving structure & process

Individual or small group interventions

Functional assessment

Behavior support plans

Academic interventions

Mental health supports

Voice/Ownership (family/teacher)
Tertiary Level Training
Engaging and supporting families and teachers
 Developing Individualized Teams
 Accessing community supports
 Mental Health supports
 Behavior support plans
 Academic interventions
 Other life domains (safety, medical, spiritual…)
 Interagency connections
Resources:

(Fixen, et al, 2005)“Implementation Research: A
Synthesis of the Literature http://mim.fmhi.usf.edu

(Kutash et al, 2006) “School-based Mental Health: An
Empirical Guide for Decision-Makers” http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu

(Bazelon Center, 2006)“Way to Go”….School
Success for Children with Mental Health Care Needs
www.bazelon.org

www.pbisillinois.org

www.pbis.org