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 – [email protected]
Jeff Sprague – [email protected]
Brenda Scheuermann – [email protected]
Mike Nelson – [email protected]
Eugene Wang – [email protected]