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?

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?

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

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).

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

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

Issues with Extension and Possible Solutions We 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 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’

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’?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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).  

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.

Best Practices Overlap USDJ

1. Assess risks & needs 2. Enhance Intrinsic

Motivation3. Target Interventions4. Skill train With Directed

practice5. Increase positive

reinforcement6. Engage Ongoing

Support in Natural Communities

7. Measure relevant processes/practices

8. Provide Measurement Feedback

PBIS1. Early Identification2. Reinforcement system3. Continuum of supports 4. Explicit instruction & practice

in social expectations5. Reinforcement system6. Climate of preventative /

positive, parent involvement 7. Data based decision-making 8. Data sharing

04/21/2320

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

04/21/23

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.

21

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

04/21/23

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D.

22

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)

04/21/2323

Fidelity of Implementation of PBIS

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

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

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

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