Universal School-wide Screening to Identify Students at Risk of School Failure 2008 National Forum for Implementers of School-Wide PBS October 31, 2008 Doug Cheney, Ph.D., Washington PBIS Coordinator, University of Washington, Seattle Kimberli Breen, Technical Assistance Director, Jenn Rose, XX Position IL-PBIS Network:

Session Agenda Background and Context for using Screening Some evidence from Washington schools using SSBD Application of using SSBD Further Ideas for Students at risk

Risk Factors Individual Family Community Personal Adjustment & Life Success School

Universal Screening Reliable Tools available for past 20 years Universal screening offers opportunity for prevention, yet…. Schools reluctant to conduct behavioral screening: –Fear of “stigmatizing kids” –Concerns regarding efficient/effective methods of supporting identified youth Source: Walker, Cheney, Stage, Blum (2005)

Universal (school-wide) behavioral screening : Addresses prevalence of emotional/behavior problems among school-age children ranges between 9%-13% (Tier 2 & 3 Students) Provides a valid and reliable approach for identifying student behavioral issues –Externalizing and Internalizing students are identified Highlights schools as an ideal environment for addressing mental health-related issues –“Less stigmatizing” than clinics –Potential to reach large groups of youth and families –Successfully identify kids with internalizing behaviors

Universal Screening Behavioral screening viewed as normative, e.g., Vision, Hearing, Literacy Good fit with RTI behavior model Links to prevention programs & reduces need for more intensive services later – Untreated emotional/behavioral issues correlate with negative outcomes Poor grades & personal relationships High school dropout & Unemployment Incarceration, Substance abuse, Suicide

Screening History (SSBD) Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Research in the 1980s on predictors Gating procedures following mental health model Published in 1992, Walker & Severson Evidence for efficiency, effectiveness, & cost benefits

Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007) Teachers Rank Order 3 Ext. & 3 Int. Students Teachers Rate Top 3 Students on Critical Events, Adaptive & Maladaptive Scales Gate 1 Gate 2 Pass Gate 1 Classroom & Playground Observations Gate 3 Pass Gate 2 Tier 2,3 Intervention Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral

SSBD History in Washington Used in research over the past 10 years –10 districts statewide School psychs review & adopt for district Teachers informed & process reviewed in staff meeting Screening takes 1-2 hours per teacher to complete Tier 2 Students identified

Cheney, Stage, Hawken, Lynass, Mielenz, & Waugh (in review) 119 Tier 2 CCE Intervention, 86 Comparison Students in 18 schools 73/119 students (61%) graduate within 2 yrs SSBD & Behavioral Measures differentiate graduates, comparisons, nongraduates. Graduates lower problem behaviors & increase social skills in growth curve model.

SSBD Differentiates Grads, Non- grads, Comparisons GraduatesNon-GraduatesComparison SSBD Critical Events 5.9 (2.8)5.4 (3.0)5.2 (2.8) SSBD Maladaptive 31.2 (10.5) a 37.2 (5.7) b 32.2 (7.8) a SSBD Adaptive32.3 (8.0) a 28.0 (4.8) b 30.6 (6.8) a

Decrease in Prob Behavior, SSRS

What to do with at-risk students? Relationship matters School-home communication In school structure & supervision More frequent monitoring & feedback Increased reinforcement/acknowledgement Behavioral engagement in work

What to do? Behavioral contracts & cards Prompt, cue, precorrect, direct Learn to self-manage English Proficiency Social Skill Instruction & Problem Solving

Assignment #3 Case Study and Behavior Planning