1. Secondary/Tertiary Systems Development at District & School Levels Lucille Eber Illinois PBIS Network National PBIS Leadership Forum Hyatt Regency O’Hare, Rosemont, IL October 8, 2009 Session A-5 Cindy Anderson University of Oregon

2. “Context” for Model Development in IL IL EBD Network (1993-2000) –System of Care, Wraparound, Interagency –Began SW-PBS in 1998 (20-25 schools) IL PBIS Network (2000- present) –1,100 schools supported by Network K-I Center: Tertiary Demo project –Six districts in 4 th Year of Tertiary demo-54 schools –Two Districts in 2 nd Year – 12 schools (Rep sites) –Five more districts in 1 st year- 15 schools (Rep sites)

3. Acknowledging IL PBIS Network Tier 2/3 Leaders Kimberli Breen Sheri Luecking Amy Lee Ami Flammini Michele Capio-Collins Dan Koonce

4. Our Journey…. From demos… to replication…. to ‘business as usual’…. –Changes in Secondary and Tertiary courses Tools integrated Teaming structures better defined Scheduled phone follow-up for team facilitators is automatic

5. ‘Baseline’ Issues Identified Systems, data, Practices District level challenges Building-level roadblocks

6. Challenges for Districts Making Universal supports available for ALL Referrals to Special Education seen as the “intervention” FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention Relying on interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect Moving from one-student at a time (reactive approaches) to capacity (systems) within schools to support ALL who need Secondary/Tertiary.

7. Observations of Systems/Practices As Demos Began Schools did not have continuum of interventions –Just 1 or 2 types of Secondary, & SpEd was seen as the Tertiary “intervention” Schools had some opportunity for referral for assistance –But were NOT using data for automatic entrance into interventions No/minimal Universal screening Lack of data-based decision rules (ex. 2 ODRs = entrance to CICO)

8. Observations of Systems/Practices As Demos Began Data weakest link –Data-based decision rules for entrance into secondary & tertiary interventions unclear –Tracking intervention effectiveness was not on the radar Principals and clinicians were treating discipline problems/approaches, SpEd testing/placement, and “PBIS” as separate entities or silos within schools and districts.

9. Progress after 3 Years Tier 2/3 System Tools developed for both district and school use Increase in students accessing Tier 2/3 interventions Improvement in fidelity of interventions Improved student outcomes Changes in District systems/data/practices Change in Network approach to building Tier 2/3 capacity

10. N=70 FY 2009-Study IIi High Risk School Behaviors Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3 Study Cohort

11. N=125 High Risk No Risk Minimal Risk Moderate Risk FY 2009-Study II Students by Overall Risk of Placement

12. N=70 High Risk No Risk Minimal Risk Moderate Risk FY 2009-Study III Students by Overall Risk of Placement Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3

13. More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place FY09 School Profile Tool Students Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions

14. Select comparison between matched samples of demo and non-demo schools filling out the School Profile Tool and reporting levels of interventions by school.

15. Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Rapidly Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I (n=8 Replication Schools)

16. Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting

17. Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements

18. Improved Access to General Education for Students with IEPs Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of Day in General Education Setting

19. System Tools Track Decreases in Special Education Placement Lovejoy Elementary School Special Education Referral/Placement by School Year

20. The Developing Tier 2/3 Model….

21. System Structures Needed: Installation Stage District-level… School-level…

22. Commitments for Success –Tier 2/3 Coaching FTE –Position Personnel to Facilitate Tertiary Intervention Teams for 3-5% of Students –Comprehensive Training and “Practice” –Data-based decision-making is part of all practices –Tertiary District Leadership Team –Tertiary Systems Planning team in each school –Review Special Education and Disproportionality Data –Review District Policies

23. District-wide Tertiary Implementation Process District meeting quarterly –District outcomes –Capacity/sustainability –Other schools/staff Building meeting monthly –Check on all levels –Cross-planning with all levels –Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap) Tertiary Coaching Capacity Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams

24. Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

25. Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Check-in/ Check-out (CICO) Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., Check and Connect -CnC and Mentoring) Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP Wraparound ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Social/Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG) Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 Tier 2/ Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Intervention Assessment

26. Teaming at Tier 2 Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’ –Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and Brief FBA/BIP supports –Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves –Students are NOT discussed Problem Solving Team (‘conversation’) –Develops & monitors plans for one student at a time –Every school has this type of meeting –Teachers and family are typically invited

27. Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool Structured to follow 6 levels/types of interventions from Secondary through Tertiary Increases accountability –Schools have to count # of kids in interventions –Data-based decision-rules are necessary (Identify, Progress-monitor, Exit) –Must define ‘response’ to each intervention type/level –Shows % of kids who responded to each intervention …..the tool assesses the success rate, or effectiveness of the interventions themselves Connects each level of intervention to the next level

29. Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups Three types of skills-building groups: 1) Pro-social skills 2) Problem-solving skills 3) Academic Behavior skills ** (Academic Content skills) Best if involves use of Daily Progress Report These are often the skill groups facilitated by social workers and counselors

30. Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups Selection into groups should be based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances (ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce) Goals for improvement should be common across youth in same group (ex. use your words) Data should measure if skills are being USED in natural settings, not in counseling sessions (transference of skills to classroom, café etc.) Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)

31. Use of Daily Progress Report Transference and generalization of skills Prompting of replacement behaviors Reinforcement of replacement behaviors Stakeholder feedback and buy-in

32. Teaming at Tier 3 Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’ –Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound supports –Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves –Students are NOT discussed Individual Student Teams –FBA/BIP Team per student –Wraparound Team per student

33. Student-Specific Teams Wraparound Team: –Family of child and all relevant stakeholders invited by family. Wrap facilitators are trained to effectively engage families so that they will see that these teams are created by and for the family, and therefore will want to have a team and actively participate. School staff involved are informed that their presence is uniquely important for this youth and invited to participate. Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team: –Like the wraparound team, this team is uniquely created for each individual child in need of comprehensive planning and the families are critical members of the team. All relevant individuals/staff are invited.

34. 3-Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) CICO SAIG Group w. individual feature Complex FBA/BIP Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Brief FBA/ BIP Brief FBA/BIP WRAP Secondary Systems Team Plans SW & Class-wide supports Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Sept. 1, 2009 Universal Team Universal Support

35. Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool: NON-Examples of Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response 1.Responding to CICO: kid carries that DPR card 2.Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: kid shows up for group - even if he’s not supposed to be there 3.Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): roughly, maybe about 30-50% of the numbers are circled on the paper sheet (double digits are always good) 4.Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again” 5.Responding to Complex Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he really gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again” 6.Responding to Wraparound Plans: kid comes to school every day with a smile, and the kid’s teacher has taken to wearing her original “Woodstock Nation” t- shirt on school spirit days – she’s a happy camper.

36. Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool: Examples of Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response 1.Responding to CICO: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks. 2.Responding to Social/Academic Instructional groups: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting) and has had no new ODRs. 3.Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks, has had no ODRs or ISSs and has improved attendance. 4.Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: Over a 4 week period, youth has demonstrated trends of decreased tardies and increased work completion (as demonstrated on individualized DPR). 5.Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting), 50% reduction in ODRs and improvement in SIMEO. 6.Responding to Wraparound Plans: Improvement in reading skills as measured by DIBELS; and improvement with peer interactions (participating in extracurricular activities and socializing with peers on a regular basis) as measured by SIMEO.

37. Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student Data Management

38. Deciding Which Tertiary Level Intervention is Most Appropriate Complex FBA/BIP (T200): Brief FBA/BIP was not successful AND NONE of Wraparound criteria are present Wraparound (T300+) : Youth with multiple needs across home, school, community & life domains Youth at-risk for change of placement The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e. adults not getting along well)

39. Tertiary Students Receiving Wrap v. Complex FBA FY08-09

40. Systems-Response Tool “Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary Supports Records the “system’s response” to youth behavior/circumstance Administrators and team members need to find the #s of youth that meet each criteria –Using the tool IS engaging in a ‘systems-reflection’ –Prevents the hiding or mis-labeling of youth (ex. “We don’t have any kids that need Wraparound”)

41. Systems-Response Tool System Response Options Total # of Students in Category for Time Period: List date at top of column & total # of youth in each box Date: A. Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (ex. CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP) B. Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (ex. Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound) C. Students being considered for Special Education Testing D. Students with Special Education process in progress (being tested, placement being considered, etc.) E. Students that were tested and did not qualify for Special Education F. Students suspended on one occasion G. Students suspended on two or more separate occasions H. Students placed (or at risk of placed) in separate setting or “Safe School” (ex. Alternative to suspension program) I. Students in Special Education setting, out-of-home school J. Students in “short-term” restrictive placement in clinical setting (hospitalization) K. Students with expulsion hearing in progress L. Students expelled

42. Raw Data: Selected Items from Lukancic 08-09 Systems Response Tool Systems Response Tool Lukancic 08-09 SY 07-08 Septemb e r 2 0 0 8 October 2 0 0 8 Novembe r 2 0 0 8 Decembe r 2 0 0 8 January 2 0 0 9 February 2 0 0 9 March 2 0 0 9 April 2 0 0 9May 2009 Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP) 2771514192442254526 Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound) 14171819 1819 Students being considered for Special Education Testing 4121121002 Students suspended on two or more separate occasions 29010020001

43. Examples of Practice Features that Need System Support District and School level Staff development priorities (ongoing) Changes in ‘policies’ –FBA/BIP, staff assignment, administrative roles –Use of data to guide practices (required) –Specialized services staff roles –Decision rules for making placements

44. Wraparound Skill Sets 1.Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators) “Student needs to feel others respect him” 2.Establish voice/ownership 3.Reframe blame 4.Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming immobilized by “setting events” 5.Getting to interventions that actually work 6.Integrate data-based decision-making into complex process (home-school-community)

45. Function The purpose/reason for demonstrating a specific type of behavior within a specific context/routine. Specific behaviors have been strengthened by consistent reinforcement. Family voice may not be necessary to identify function of behavior in the school setting. Once Function is correctly identified, putting a plan in place can produce rapid behavior change. This can be accomplished in a single meeting. Big Need The underlying reason preventing successful experiences/interactions in multiple settings/contexts/routines When a big quality of life need is unmet, it impacts perception/ judgment, often resulting in chronic problem behavior. Family voice is necessary to identify the Big Need for the school setting. Once Big Need is identified, it takes a while to achieve and involves action planning across multiple life domains. Meeting the big need always involves multiple Child & Family Team meetings.

46. Function Function is identified through structured interviews focusing on the problem behavior, antecedents, consequences, and setting events Focus is on developing function- based support plan (replacement behavior, antecedent, consequence, and setting event supports). When achieved, situations improve for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher). Big Need Big needs are identified through open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools with those engaged with the youth on a regular basis. Big Need statements motivate a family to participate on the team (know we are working on something ‘bigger’ than specific behaviors). If met, the need will improve quality of life for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

47. Big Need: “Andy needs to feel like he belongs at school” School Behaviors: Aggressive with peers, excessive absences/tardies, history of academic failure Other indicators: Family frequently relocated, lack of home school communication, community support needs Starting with FBA would not have been an effective approach— why? –Discussing problem behaviors would not have motivated family to participate on team. –Probably not the first time schools have approached family in this manner (“let’s talk about behavior”) –Open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools helped engage family –Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family

48. Four Phases of Wraparound Implementation I.Team Preparation - Get people ready to be a team - Complete strengths/needs chats (baseline data) II.Initial Plan Development - Hold initial planning meetings (integrate data) - Develop a team “culture” (use data to establish voice) III.Plan Implementation & Refinement - Hold team meetings to review plans (ongoing data collection and use) - Modify, adapt & adjust team plan (based on data) IV.Plan Completion & Transition - Define good enough (Data-based decision- making) - “Unwrap”

49. Points to Remember: Engaging Families  Apply RtI to Family Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked up  If engagement didn’t happen, how would you change your approach to effectively engage?  Professionals don’t get to choose or judge how families raise their kids.  Always start with a conversation (not a meeting) with the family, getting their trust and permission before talking with others.

50. Points to Remember: Engaging Professionals  Apply RtI to Teacher Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked.  Just like we do for kids and families, recognize teacher strengths and needs. Teacher voice in the plan will ensure better outcomes.  Always start with a conversation (don’t hand them ‘forms to fill out”). Teachers need to be prepared for the wrap meeting and kept “in the loop”.  Use data to bring teacher and family together.

51. Using Data to Drive Decision-Making with Wraparound More efficient teams, meetings and plans Less reactive (emotion-based) actions More strategic actions More effective outcomes Longer-term commitment to maintain success

52. Baseline Data - Enhances the initial conversations with family and team members. Creates more efficient team meetings. Takes the emotion out of team meetings. Gives us a starting point for planning. Helps us plan across all environments – Home, School and Community Wraparound: Data-based decision-making

53. Wraparound Case Study “Ozzie” cont. Getting to Strengths and Needs at Baseline Using Data and Voice & Choice

54. Follow-up Data (Time2, Time 3…) Helps the team celebrate progress and build on what is working; Shows small increments of progress that can be missed. Helps us progress monitor – if the plan is not working, re-work the plan! Helps us get buy-in from staff, administration, and skeptical team members. Wraparound: Data-based decision-making

55. Transition Planning for “Jacob” Using Data to get buy-in from the new team