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

  • Published on
    14-Jan-2016

  • View
    41

  • Download
    2

DESCRIPTION

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. Who are we incarcerating?. 2/3-3/4 of incarcerated youth have these - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript

The Status of PBIS in Secure Juvenile Justice Settings and Next Steps: Perspectives from ResearchersKristine Jolivette, Ph.D.Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.Brenda Scheuermann, Ph.D.C. Michael Nelson, Ed.D.Eugene Wang, Ph.D.Who are we incarcerating?QuestionsWhy 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?How Juvenile Justice WorksIncarceration PLUS punishmentSuccessful completion of treatment plans require high levels of literacy skillsRelease is contingent upon progress through the treatment planYouth with educational disabilities, poor literacy skills make significantly slower progressAverage literacy levels of incarcerated youth range from 5th-9th gradeEducation is an add-onRecidivism and Youth with DisabilitiesRecidivism: 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).Why PBIS in Secure Care?Effective and efficient alternative to harsh, inconsistent, and ineffective disciplinary methods in many juvenile justice facilitiespunishment mentality, inconsistency among staffDecisions about discipline not linked to data on youth behaviorStatus of PBIS in JJ SettingsTwo large initiativesTexas PBIS statewide project to implement SWPBIS in each long-term secure facilityIES grant in facilities in Arizona, California, Georgia, and OregonOther states interestedMany facilities state they are using PBIS not clear if accurate or across tiersLimited empirical data on implementationThis group is in the process of a national survey of all juvenile justice and alternative education settings on PBIS implementationIssues with Extension and Possible SolutionsWe have collectively faced common issues and questions when attempting to extend PBIS into JJ settings which will be described We offer possible solutions to these common issuesMissions of Safety and SecurityPrimary mission of JJ settings is the safety and security of its youth, staff, and visitors 24/7 in all facility environmentsFor example right to live in a safe, orderly environmentvalue the safety of the youth in our careprotect the communityMissions of Safety and SecurityQuestions related to how PBIS and safety/security mission have arisenDoes PBIS weaken/threaten safety/security?Does PBIS undermine staff authority?Does PBIS remove all consequences?Does PBIS put the youth in charge?Missions of Safety and SecurityCommon language safety, predictability, consistency, and positivityUnified with consistent language/values common set of expectations for all youth and staffClarifies and reduces need for consequences per facility proceduresFewer behavioral incidentsHigher staff satisfactionData used to make decisionsIncentive Programs versus Contingent ReinforcementLinked to safety and security concernsQuestions about youth and staff reinforcement in facility-wide PBISHow is this different from our level systems?What is the difference between our incentive programs and PBIS reinforcement?Incentives/reinforcement same thing its a safety and security concernHoarding of treatsStealing/bartering of treatsGreat hiding place for contrabandIncentive Programs versus Contingent ReinforcementLinks youth and staff behavior to specific reinforcement per FW-PBIS expectations -> contingentClarifies what youth truly need secondary-tier level systems -> promotes efficiency and effectivenessReinforcement purposeful and planned -> predictable and fairly givenReinforcement consumable by youth who earned itThrough supervisionThrough variety of privileges, activities, status/recognition, praise, tangiblesTransient Youth and Staff PopulationsQuestions related to contextual variable of transciency of entire populationHow 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?Transient Youth and Staff PopulationsBroad PBIS content in new staff training -> rest is on the job for unique FW-PBIS per facilityEmbed FW-PBIS plan content in youth intake processesTeaching, modeling, and reinforcing expected, positive behavior will promote positive youth behavior while IN facility and AFTERUse of a coaching model would assist in sustainabilityRevolving Door of Initiatives Impairs Clarity, Efficiency and EfficacyAE programs suffer from a revolving door of initiatives based on sometimes differing and sometimes coordinated theories and research traditionsCriminality/delinquency theoriesCognitive-BehavioralBehavioral?????Most programs are a loosely coordinated mashup resulting in low implementation fidelityDiffering Views on Tiered ApproachesView 1: Children and youth in AE programs are all tier IIIView 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). Integrated models can workIntegrated 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. Best Practices Overlap USDJAssess risks & needs Enhance Intrinsic MotivationTarget InterventionsSkill train With Directed practiceIncrease positive reinforcementEngage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities Measure relevant processes/practicesProvide Measurement FeedbackPBISEarly IdentificationReinforcement systemContinuum of supports Explicit instruction & practice in social expectationsReinforcement systemClimate of preventative / positive, parent involvement Data based decision-making Data sharing **Implementing Positive Behavior Supports in Juvenile Corrections SettingsOur 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 practicesContextual 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. *Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. 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 behaviorsIncreases 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 outcomesAlignment, of procedures, efficiency, & tools for measuring implementation fidelity and effectiveness Validate the practices already in place*Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. *Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. PBIS ApproachStrengths: Clarifies expectations Provides structure for youth and staff membersData based decision making increases accountability and protects youthWeaknesses:Often mistaken for its parts and not as the whole modelMay be viewed as competing with other models or programsThe proactive / preventative nature may be perceived as incongruent with Juvenile Justice practices (e.g., corrections)**Fidelity of Implementation of PBISChart10.7500.375A. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations Defined0.70.10.4B. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations Taught111C. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward System111D. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction System0.3750.250.3125E. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring System0.7500.375F. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership System0.500.25G. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency System0.7250.33571428570.5303571429MeanMeanMeanMeanMeanMeanSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFETCross-year Comparison Summary GraphFET Data EntryFETBe sure to save as Facility NameNOTES - To print report - CHANGE DATE every time and enter name in header first timeFACILITYChallenger Youth Memorial CenterSCHOOLSTATECaliforniaDATE COLLECTED (mm/dd/yyyy)4/26/12COLLECTORSpragueIOA bynaConsent signed (yes/no)FET Score ItemSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostA1. 3-5 Rules2.00.01.0A2. Publicly Posted1.00.00.5SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostB1. Directly Teach2.01.01.5B2. Actually Taught2.00.01.0B3. Staff Training2.00.01.0B4. Students-Expectations0.00.00.0B5. Staff-Expectations1.00.00.5SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostC1. Reward System2.02.02.0C2. Students Recevied2.02.02.0C3. Staff Delivered2.02.02.0SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostD1. Violations2.02.02.0D2. Security Managed2.02.02.0D3. Crisis Plan2.02.02.0D4. Extreme Emergencies2.02.02.0SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostE1. Referal Forms1.01.01.0E2. Referal Process1.01.01.0E3. Data Summaries1.00.00.5E4. Data for Decisions0.00.00.0SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostF1. Improvement Plan1.00.00.5F2. Staff Identify Team1.00.00.5F3. Team is Representative0.00.00.0F4. Team Leader Identified2.00.01.0F5. Administrative Support2.00.01.0F6. Monthly Meetings2.00.01.0F7. Team Reports2.00.01.0F8. Team Action Plan2.00.01.0SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostG1. Budget Support0.00.00.0G2. PBIS Liaison2.00.01.0Do not enter belowDo not enter belowDo not enter belowDo not enter belowSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAveragePrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPostA. Expectations Defined75.0%0.0%37.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%B. Expectations Taught70.0%10.0%40.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%C. Reward System100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%D. Correction System100.0%100.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%E. Monitoring System37.5%25.0%31.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%F. Leadership System75.0%0.0%37.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%G. Agency System50.0%0.0%25.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Mean72.5%33.6%53.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ReportFacility-wide Evaluation Tool for Juvenile Justice Programs (FET/JJ)Challenger Youth Memorial Center4/26/12Implementing Positive Behavior Supports in Juvenile Corrections SettingsThank you for the opportunity to meet with you about your school's PBIS program. The following is a brief summary of the staff, student, and building information collected.If we can answer any questions about the data or assist with your school's PBIS, please feel to contact us.Jeffrey Sprague, PhD - IVDB Co-DirectorKristine Jolivette, PhDClaudia Vincent Project CoordinatorPaula McFaddenInstitute on Violence and Destructive Behavior1265 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1265Telephone: (541) 346-3592The FET is designed to assess and evaluate the critical features of facility-wide effective behavior support. The FET provides information on the level of systems implementation in the facility. High levels of consistency in implementing systems of intervention in the facility are related to improved outcome regarding discipline and safety. The FET assesses key features of a quality facility wide positive behavior supports program and can be used to target areas for improvement regarding discipline systems. Information necessary for this assessment tool is gathered through multiple sources including: Brief Interviews, Direct Observation, School Handbook, and Other Discipline Materials. The following table lists the questions and scoring for the FET evaluation.FeatureEvaluation Question Table 1A. Expectations Defined1. Is there documentation that staff across the facility (school and facility) has agreed to 5 or fewer positively stated facility rules/ behavioral expectations? (0=no, 1= too many/negatively focused, 2 = yes)2. Are the agreed upon rules & expectations publicly posted in 8 of 10 locations? (See interview & observation form for selection of locations). ( 0= 0-4, 1= 5-7, 2= 8-10)B. Behavioral Expectations Taught1. Is there a documented system for teaching behavioral expectations to youths on an ongoing basis? (0= no, 1 = states that teaching will occur, 2= yes)2. Do 90% of the staff asked state that teaching of behavioral expectations to youths has occurred? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2=90%-100%)3. Do 90% of team members asked state that the program has been taught/reviewed with staff on an ongoing basis? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2=90%-100%)4. Can at least 70% of 15 or more youth state 2/3 of the facility rules? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-69%, 2= 70-100%)5. Can 90% or more of the staff asked list 2/3 of the facility rules? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2=90%-100%)C. On-going System for Rewarding Behavioral Expectations1. Is there a documented system for rewarding youth behavior? (0= no, 1= states to acknowledge, but not how, 2= yes)2. Do 50% or more of the youth asked indicate they have received a reward (other than verbal praise) for expected behaviors over the past two months? (0= 0-25%, 1= 26-49%, 2= 50-100%)3. Does 90% of staff asked indicate they have delivered a reward (other than verbal praise) to the youth for expected behavior over the past two months? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)D. System for Responding to Behavioral Violations1. Is there a documented system for dealing with and reporting specific behavioral violations? ( 0= no, 1= states to document, but not how, and 2 = yes)2. Do 90% of staff asked agree with administration on what problems are security-managed (i.e., disciplinary confinement) and what problems are staffmanaged? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)3. Is there a documented crisis plan for responding to extreme dangerous situations in 6 of 7 locations? (0= 0-3, 1= 4-5, 2= 6-7)4. Does 90% of staff asked agree with administration on the procedure for handling extreme emergencies (physical attacks on youth or staff)? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)E. Monitoring & Decision-Making1. Does the behavior incident form list (a) youth name, (b) date, (c) time, (d) referring staff, (e) problem behavior, (f) location, (g) persons involved, (h) probable motivation, & (i) administrative decision? (0=0-3 items, 1= 4-6 items, 2= 7-9 items)2. Can the administrator clearly define a system for collecting & summarizing behavior incident reports (computer software, data entry time)? (0=no, 1= referrals are collected, 2= yes)3. Does the administrator report that the team provides behavior data summary reports to the staff at least three times/year? (0= no, 1= 1-2 times/yr., 2= 3 or more times/yr.)4. Does 90% of team members asked report that behavior data are used for making decisions in designing, implementing, and revising facility-wide PBIS efforts? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)F. Management1. Does the facility improvement plan list improving behavior support systems as one of the top 3 facility improvement plan goals? (0= no, 1= 4th or higher, 2 = yes)2. Can 90% of staff asked report that there is a facility-wide team established to address behavior support systems in the facility? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)3. Does the administrator report that team membership includes representation of all staff? (0= no, 2= yes)4. Can 90% of team members asked identify the team leader? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)5. Is the administrator an active member of the facility-wide behavior support team? (0= no, 1= yes, but not consistently, 2 = yes)6. Does the administrator report that team meetings occur at least monthly? (0=no team meeting, 1=less often than monthly, 2= at least monthly)7. Does the administrator report that the team reports progress to the staff at least four times per year? (0=no, 1= less than 4 times per year, 2= yes)8. Does the team have an action plan with specific goals that is less than one year old? (0=no, 2=yes)G. Agency-Level Support1. Does the program budget contain an allocated amount of money for building and maintaining facility-wide PBIS? (0= no, 2= yes)2. Can the administrator identify an out-of-facility liaison in the agency? (0= no, 2=yes)The following charts and results summary describes your facilitiess performance on the seven major domains of the FET. These include Systems for Defining Behavioral Rules and Expectations, Systems for Teaching Behavioral Rules and Expectations, Systems of Reinforcement and Acknowledgement, Systems for Responding to Problem Behaviors, Systems for Data-based Monitoring and Decision-making, Program Implementation Systems, and Support Systems. We recommend that you apply the evaluation criteria listed below, and then look at your score on each individual item of the FET.The FET assessment results indicate the extent to which facility-wide positive behavior support practices are in place at your facility. Features or systems falling between 80 and 100 percent are considered to be implemented with high fidelity and in need of little or no improvement. Those falling between 70 and 80 percent are moderately developed or in need of incremental improvement. Systems falling between 50 and 70 percent are in need of improvement, and those systems falling below 50 percent are considered undeveloped. We recommend that you use the results to target areas for immediate improvement, those that need to be maintained, and those that will be developed or improved at a later time.Chart 1: Cross-Year Comparison Summary Graph. (Table 2)Charts 2-8: Break down of the item scores for each individual scoring PBIS implementation evaluation items making up the seven broad domains in the FET (See Table 2 above). Refer to Table 1 at the beginning of this report for the definitions of individual evaluation items presented in the following charts.Chart 2-Feature A. Expectations DefinedChart 3-Feature B. Behavioral Expectations TaughtChart 4-Feature C. On-going System for Rewarding Behavioral ExpectationsChart 5-Feature D. System for Responding to Behavioral ViolationsChart 6-Feature E. Monitoring and Decision-MakingChart 7-Feature F. ManagementChart 8-Feature G. Agency-Level Support&LChallenger Youth Memorial Center &R&G&L&8FET Report Template 08/11/2012&R&8Page &P of &NReport0.7500.375A. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations Defined0.70.10.4B. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations Taught111C. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward System111D. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction System0.3750.250.3125E. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring System0.7500.375F. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership System0.500.25G. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency System0.7250.33571428570.5303571429MeanMeanMeanMeanMeanMeanSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFETCross-year Comparison Summary GraphSheet3201A1. 3-5 RulesA1. 3-5 RulesA1. 3-5 RulesA1. 3-5 RulesA1. 3-5 RulesA1. 3-5 Rules100.5A2. Publicly PostedA2. Publicly PostedA2. Publicly PostedA2. Publicly PostedA2. Publicly PostedA2. Publicly PostedSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: A. Systems for Defining Behavioral Rules and Expectations211.5B1. Directly TeachB1. Directly TeachB1. Directly TeachB1. Directly TeachB1. Directly TeachB1. Directly Teach201B2. Actually TaughtB2. Actually TaughtB2. Actually TaughtB2. Actually TaughtB2. Actually TaughtB2. Actually Taught201B3. Staff TrainingB3. Staff TrainingB3. Staff TrainingB3. Staff TrainingB3. Staff TrainingB3. Staff Training000B4. Students-ExpectationsB4. Students-ExpectationsB4. Students-ExpectationsB4. Students-ExpectationsB4. Students-ExpectationsB4. Students-Expectations100.5B5. Staff-ExpectationsB5. Staff-ExpectationsB5. Staff-ExpectationsB5. Staff-ExpectationsB5. Staff-ExpectationsB5. Staff-ExpectationsSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: B. Systems for Teaching Behavioral Rules and Expectations222C1. Reward SystemC1. Reward SystemC1. Reward SystemC1. Reward SystemC1. Reward SystemC1. Reward System222C2. Students ReceviedC2. Students ReceviedC2. Students ReceviedC2. Students ReceviedC2. Students ReceviedC2. Students Recevied222C3. Staff DeliveredC3. Staff DeliveredC3. Staff DeliveredC3. Staff DeliveredC3. Staff DeliveredC3. Staff DeliveredSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: C. Systems of Reinforcement and Acknowledgement222D1. ViolationsD1. ViolationsD1. ViolationsD1. ViolationsD1. ViolationsD1. Violations222D2. Security ManagedD2. Security ManagedD2. Security ManagedD2. Security ManagedD2. Security ManagedD2. Security Managed222D3. Crisis PlanD3. Crisis PlanD3. Crisis PlanD3. Crisis PlanD3. Crisis PlanD3. Crisis Plan222D4. Extreme EmergenciesD4. Extreme EmergenciesD4. Extreme EmergenciesD4. Extreme EmergenciesD4. Extreme EmergenciesD4. Extreme EmergenciesSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: D. Systems for Responding to Problem Behaviors222E1. Referal FormsE1. Referal FormsE1. Referal FormsE1. Referal FormsE1. Referal FormsE1. Referal Forms222E2. Referal ProcessE2. Referal ProcessE2. Referal ProcessE2. Referal ProcessE2. Referal ProcessE2. Referal Process222E3. Data SummariesE3. Data SummariesE3. Data SummariesE3. Data SummariesE3. Data SummariesE3. Data Summaries222E4. Data for DecisionsE4. Data for DecisionsE4. Data for DecisionsE4. Data for DecisionsE4. Data for DecisionsE4. Data for DecisionsSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in pPaceFET Item by Item graph: E. Systems for Databased Monitoring and Decision-making100.5F1. Improvement PlanF1. Improvement PlanF1. Improvement PlanF1. Improvement PlanF1. Improvement PlanF1. Improvement Plan100.5F2. Staff Identify TeamF2. Staff Identify TeamF2. Staff Identify TeamF2. Staff Identify TeamF2. Staff Identify TeamF2. Staff Identify Team000F3. Team is RepresentativeF3. Team is RepresentativeF3. Team is RepresentativeF3. Team is RepresentativeF3. Team is RepresentativeF3. Team is Representative201F4. Team Leader IdentifiedF4. Team Leader IdentifiedF4. Team Leader IdentifiedF4. Team Leader IdentifiedF4. Team Leader IdentifiedF4. Team Leader Identified201F5. Administrative SupportF5. Administrative SupportF5. Administrative SupportF5. Administrative SupportF5. Administrative SupportF5. Administrative Support201F6. Monthly MeetingsF6. Monthly MeetingsF6. Monthly MeetingsF6. Monthly MeetingsF6. Monthly MeetingsF6. Monthly Meetings201F7. Team ReportsF7. Team ReportsF7. Team ReportsF7. Team ReportsF7. Team ReportsF7. Team Reports201F8. Team Action PlanF8. Team Action PlanF8. Team Action PlanF8. Team Action PlanF8. Team Action PlanF8. Team Action PlanSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: F. PBS Program Implementation Systems000G1. Budget SupportG1. Budget SupportG1. Budget SupportG1. Budget SupportG1. Budget SupportG1. Budget Support201G2. PBIS LiaisonG2. PBIS LiaisonG2. PBIS LiaisonG2. PBIS LiaisonG2. PBIS LiaisonG2. PBIS LiaisonSchool PreFacility PreAverage PreSchool MidFacility MidAverage MidSchool PostFacility PostAverage PostPercent in PlaceFET Item by Item graph: G. Program Support SystemsOak Creek Correctional FacilityOregon7/12/12Swain-BradwayMcFaddenJJ Organizational HierarchiesOrganizational StructureComplicated, changing hierarchies/structurePossibly competing goals of education, security, treatmentChanging leadership and direction/missionBudgetary constraintsSystems change?Frequent changes in direction and priorities (security vs. treatment, security vs. education)Facility-wide change vs. education-only changeDataRaw data necessity and difficultiesRaw vs. pre-aggregatedData structureData accuracy/integrityUnintentional inaccuracyIntentional inaccuracyData analysis and level of aggregationAggregated by facility or time ignores individual youth variabilityIndividual youth variability extremely complex because of high youth turnoverNext Steps for PBIS in JJ SettingsDetermine scope of implementationnational surveyEstablish networkMeasure, evaluate impactReliable, valid measures of behaviorComparison studiesReplicationDisseminationSocial marketingThank YouKristine Jolivette kjolivette@gsu.eduJeff Sprague jeffs@uoregon.eduBrenda Scheuermann brenda@txstate.eduMike Nelson mike.nelson@uky.eduEugene Wang eugene.wang@ttu.edu**Schools & communities are concernedWhile youth crime rates have been reduced, rates of disruptive and defiant behavior have risen20-60% reductions in ODRs following implementationIncrease in academic achievement of students in schools**

Recommended

View more >