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

  • Published on
    14-Jan-2016

  • View
    43

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

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-on

  • Recidivism 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 behavior

  • Status 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 implementation

  • Issues 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 issues

  • Missions 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 community

  • Missions 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 decisions

  • Incentive 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 contraband

  • Incentive 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, tangibles

  • Transient 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 sustainability

  • Revolving 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 fidelity

  • Differing 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 Feedback

    PBISEarly 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 PBIS

    Chart1

    0.7500.375A. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations DefinedA. Expectations Defined

    0.70.10.4B. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations TaughtB. Expectations Taught

    111C. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward SystemC. Reward System

    111D. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction SystemD. Correction System

    0.3750.250.3125E. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring SystemE. Monitoring System

    0.7500.375F. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership SystemF. Leadership System

    0.500.25G. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency SystemG. Agency System

    0.7250.33571428570.5303571429MeanMeanMeanMeanMeanMean

    School Pre

    Facility Pre

    Average Pre

    School Mid

    Facility Mid

    Average Mid

    School Post

    Facility Post

    Average Post

    Percent in Place

    FETCross-year Comparison Summary Graph

    FET Data Entry

    FETBe sure to save as Facility Name

    NOTES - To print report - CHANGE DATE every time and enter name in header first time

    FACILITYChallenger Youth Memorial Center

    SCHOOL

    STATECalifornia

    DATE COLLECTED (mm/dd/yyyy)4/26/12

    COLLECTORSprague

    IOA byna

    Consent signed (yes/no)

    FET Score Item

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    A1. 3-5 Rules2.00.01.0

    A2. Publicly Posted1.00.00.5

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    B1. Directly Teach2.01.01.5

    B2. Actually Taught2.00.01.0

    B3. Staff Training2.00.01.0

    B4. Students-Expectations0.00.00.0

    B5. Staff-Expectations1.00.00.5

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    C1. Reward System2.02.02.0

    C2. Students Recevied2.02.02.0

    C3. Staff Delivered2.02.02.0

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    D1. Violations2.02.02.0

    D2. Security Managed2.02.02.0

    D3. Crisis Plan2.02.02.0

    D4. Extreme Emergencies2.02.02.0

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    E1. Referal Forms1.01.01.0

    E2. Referal Process1.01.01.0

    E3. Data Summaries1.00.00.5

    E4. Data for Decisions0.00.00.0

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    F1. Improvement Plan1.00.00.5

    F2. Staff Identify Team1.00.00.5

    F3. Team is Representative0.00.00.0

    F4. Team Leader Identified2.00.01.0

    F5. Administrative Support2.00.01.0

    F6. Monthly Meetings2.00.01.0

    F7. Team Reports2.00.01.0

    F8. Team Action Plan2.00.01.0

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    G1. Budget Support0.00.00.0

    G2. PBIS Liaison2.00.01.0

    Do not enter belowDo not enter belowDo not enter belowDo not enter below

    SchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverageSchoolFacilityAverage

    PrePrePreMidMidMidPostPostPost

    A. 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%

    Report

    Facility-wide Evaluation Tool for Juvenile Justice Programs (FET/JJ)

    Challenger Youth Memorial Center

    4/26/12

    Implementing Positive Behavior Supports in Juvenile Corrections Settings

    Thank 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-Director

    Kristine Jolivette, PhD

    Claudia Vincent Project Coordinator

    Paula McFadden

    Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior

    1265 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1265

    Telephone: (541) 346-3592

    The 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 1

    A. 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 violat...

Recommended

View more >