State and District Role in State and District-level Role in Implementation, Scaling and Sustaining PBIS Session A-3 State and District Role in Implementation, Scaling and Sustaining PBIS Rob Horner University of Oregon www.pbis.org

Organizing Technical Assistance for Education Student is the unit of analysis School is the unit of intervention District is the unit of implementation State is the unit of coordination

Goals Link PBIS Implementation with “Implementation Science” Lessons learned from seven states Features of District Capacity

Compression Implementation Network of Trainers Fidelity Measure Coaching Network Outcome Measures Alignment Protocols Defined roles at all levels of system Policy Incentive Expectation Technical Assistance Capacity Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation Grassroots Demand

PBIS Implementation Roles State Establish social behavior as a core outcome Require planning to document an evidence-based approach to achieve a positive social culture and effective social emotional competence Provide incentives for investing in effective implementation District Policy for selecting effective practices Process for selecting personnel with MTSS competence Process for Training, Coaching and Performance Feedback for personnel Data systems (fidelity, impact) Organizational accountability… Schools reporting to decision-makers.

Local School Demonstrations Visibility Political Support Funding Policy Leadership Team Active Coordination Training Coaching Technical Expertise Evaluation Local School Demonstrations

Implementation Science Frameworks WHO Teams WHEN Stages WHAT Interventions HOW Cycles HOW Drivers Full set of icons with headers

Successful Student Outcomes Program/Initiative/Framework (e.g. RtI) Performance Assessment (Fidelity) Coaching Systems Intervention Training Facilitative Administration Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Implementation Drivers There are two categories of Implementation Drivers: Competency and Organization. When these core components are in place they provide the support to a successful implementation that will be sustained. Competency Drivers are mechanisms that help to develop, improve, and sustain one’s ability to implement an intervention to benefit students. Competency Drivers include: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment Organization Drivers are mechanisms to create and sustain hospitable organizational and systems environments for effective educational services. Organization Drivers include: Decision Support Data System, Facilitative Administration, and Systems Intervention PD is not a panacea to address every problem PD must be housed in a systems to support this effective practices resulting in successful sustainable student outcomes. Selection Decision Support Data System Leadership Adaptive Technical © Fixsen & Blase, 2008

Schools using PBIS August , 2014 21,611

14 States with more than 500 schools Number of Schools Implementation SWPBIS (Tier I) by State August, 2014 14 States with more than 500 schools

14 States with more than 40% of schools Proportion of Schools Implementing SWPBIS by State August, 2013 14 States with more than 40% of schools

Percentage of Schools Implementing 80% Percentage of Schools Implementing 50% Replications Model Demonstrations 10% 0% Early Later Time in Years Steve Goodman

Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success Rob Horner, Don Kincaid, George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett, Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson, (2014 ), JPBI Exploration Installation Initial Imp Full Imp Leadership Team Funding Visibility Political Support Policy Training Coaching Expertise Evaluation Demos Interviews and Data Reviews with the PBIS implementers from Seven States that had at least 500 schools using PBIS.

Exploration and Adoption Installation Initial Implementation Full Implementation Innovation and sustainability Leadership Team (coordination) Do you have a state leadership team? If you do, how was your first leadership team developed? Who were members? Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process? Was any sort of self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)? What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase? What were critical issues that confronted the team as it began to install systems changes? What were specific activities the team did to ensure success of the initial implementation efforts? Did the team change personnel or functioning as the # of schools/districts increased? What has the Leadership team done to insure sustainability? In what areas is the State “innovating” and contributing to the research and practice of PBIS (e.g. linking PBIS with literacy or math)? Do you have a state leadership team? If you do, how was your first leadership team developed? Who were members? Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process? Was any sort of self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)? What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase?

Descriptive Summary: Oregon Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Missouri Exploration / Installation /Initial Imp / Full Imp & Innovate

Descriptive Summary: North Carolina Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Colorado Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Florida Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Maryland Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Illinois Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

Lessons Learned: Moving from 10% to 40% Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation Colorado: Started with Leadership Team Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after implementation expanded. Missouri: Strong initial demonstrations led to strong state support All states began with small “demonstrations” that documented the feasibility and impact of SWPBIS. Only when states reached 100-200 demonstrations did scaling occur. Four core features needed for scaling: Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding Technical capacity (Local training, coaching, evaluation and behavioral expertise) Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact (100-200) Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement) Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data

Percentage of Schools Implementing Predicted Trajectory based on theory of critical mass 80% Percentage of Schools Implementing 50% Replications Too often, actual results Model Demonstrations 10% 0% Early Later Time in Years Steve Goodman

No “Tipping Point” 0-10%: Start with Demonstrations Document feasibility and impact 10-40%: Build capacity to improve efficiency Improve speed and cost to implement PBIS Local trainers, coaches Expand range of valued outcomes 40%-80%: Scale to Level of Systems Change Adequate technical assistance capacity Alignment strategy Formal presence within decision-making at state level Emphasis on systems (school, district, region, state) Data, data, data, data

Moving from 40% to 80% Formal System for Initiative Selection and Alignment Implement with Depth Tier I through “classroom” Establish data systems (BOTH data collection and data use) Tiers II and III Greater attention to PBIS Systems Embed and Adapt (with consistent core) Presence at decision points (which are not always well defined) Make PBIS relevant to current target areas Support new strategies to achieve PBIS core features. NOTE: The key to effective adaptation is regular measurement of fidelity

Districts: Link Academic and Behavior Supports Effective and Efficient Tier I 1. Evidence-based curriculum 2. Unambiguous instruction 3. Adequate intensity 4. System for positive feedback 5. System for timely error correction. Universal Screening 6. Collect US 2-4 times per year 7. Use data for early intervention Evidence-based Tier II, Tier III 8. Targeted supports ( Tier II) 9. Intensive support (Tier III) 10. Timely intervention support Progress Monitoring 11. Collection of data 12. Use of data for decision-making Fidelity Monitoring 13. Collection of fidelity data 14. Use of fidelity data for decision-making. Amanda Sarah

Districts: Organizational Systems Coherent District Policy Social behavior is a priority in district improvement plan District commitment to selecting practices that are evidence-based District process for aligning multiple initiatives. Evaluation Capacity Data systems that inform decision-making and provide policy feedback ** Fidelity and Impact Recruitment, Hiring, Evaluation “Preference will be given to individuals with knowledge and experience in implementation of multi-tiered academic and behavior supports.” Team Based Implementation

Districts Annual Faculty/Staff Orientation HOW Drivers Annual Faculty/Staff Orientation Defines PBIS as a priority Defines what to expect in a school using PBIS. 30-60 min of annual orientation Professional Development (Training) PD is always tied to core improvement goals PD typically involves distributed training (multiple events) PD is always linked to on-site coaching. PD is always linked to fidelity measure Coaching

There is no tipping point in education...

Questions, Comments, Insights Summary PBIS is a major component of effective education Districts are the unit of implementation for PBIS Delivering sustained and scalable PBIS will require greater attention to: Building local technical assistance capacity (train, coach, eval, expertise) Evaluation of fidelity as well as impact Linking PBIS with mental health and justice outcomes Building the state-level capacity to align, embed, adapt while retaining core features. Questions, Comments, Insights