1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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.

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

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

8. 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

9. Schools using PBIS August , 2014
21,611

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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.

14. 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. 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 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 ( )
Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement)
Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. There is no tipping point in education...

30. 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