Building Tier 2/3 Capacity Within School-wide Systems of PBIS

1. WI Coaches forum August 2013 Building Tier 2/3 Capacity Within School-wide Systems of PBIS Lucille Eber IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org

2. Content • Context for Tier 2/3 systems development • The Tier 2/3 Readiness Process • Teaming Model & Examples of Interventions • Tools to Support Tier 2/3 • A Tier 3 Coaching and TA Process

3. IL Tier 2/3 Tools Available at PBISILLINOIS.org Tier 2/3 Readiness Tools Guiding Questions Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool Reverse Request for Assistance IL PoI Tool System Response Tool Tier 3 Wraparound Follow-up Checklists Resources Available at www.pbis.org Building Tier 2 / Tier 3 Capacity within A PBIS System of Support: Model Development and Lessons Learned Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers

4. Tools Used to Build District and Building Level Action Plans for Secondary/Tertiary Implementation • Guiding Questions Tool • Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool • Systems Response Tool • Phases of Implementation (PoI) • Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers

5. SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT: What is meant by “layering” interventions? Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students

6. 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

7. Tier 2/3…..Changing Existing Systems • Harder than starting from scratch • Schools think they are “already doing it”… • Need to “deconstruct” some existing teaming approaches and practices • Data not being used except to justify placements

8. Tools to Support Secondary/Tertiary Implementation • Tier 2/3 Readiness Checklists • Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool • Reverse Request for Assistance • Systems Response Tool • Guiding Questions Document • Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT)

9. Some “Big Picture” Challenges • Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for behavior/emotional needs • Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor outcomes) for youth with disabilities • High rate of undiagnosed MH problems (stigma, lack of knowledge, etc.) • Changing the routines of ineffective practices (systems) that are “familiar” to systems

10. Examples of Ineffective Secondary/Tertiary Structures • Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the “intervention” • FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention • Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect • (Ex: student sent for insight based counseling at point of misbehavior)

11. Tier 2/3 Readiness • District-level support is necessary for successful building-level Tier 2 & 3 implementation • District commitments should be in place before Tier 2/3 training occurs • Building-level leaders should be aware and supportive of what Tier 2/3 requires

12. 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

13. Components of Tier 2/3 Model • Differentiated Teaming Structures • Across all 3 Tiers • Assigned roles for Coordination/Facilitation • A Full Continuum of Interventions • Scaling up and down the continuum • Universal Screening • Beyond ODRs • Ongoing Use of More Specified Data • Tools for Monitoring Systems and Outcomes

14. Coordinator vs. Facilitator Coordinator • Organizes and/or oversees the specific interventions such as CICO, S/AIG & Group with Individual Features • Roles include: scheduling meetings, review & collect data to share during team meetings, etc… Facilitator • Directly provides intervention support services to youth/families • Roles include: meeting with students for CICO, running groups

15. QUICK Reflection • Where is your district/school(s) with regards to the readiness criteria?

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

17. Data-Based Decision MakingNumbers to Keep in Mind • 7-15%: Percent of total population expected to need and be supported by Tier 2 interventions • 1-5%: Percent of total population expected to need and be supported by Tier 3 interventions • 70%: Percent of youth (receiving intervention “X”) that should be responding to intervention • Data-based Decision-Rules for ‘determining response’ must be defined • Data sources defining response are efficient • Ex. Daily Progress Report (DPR) cards: Student maintains an 80% average on DPR for 4 weeks

18. Check-in-Check-out (CICO) • Merely an extension of Tier 1 • Some get high frequency scheduled positive contact with adults • Youth solicit the positive contact/feedback • Low effort for teacher if built on Tier 1 • Need to have 7-12% accessing if it is to come to be a routine in your school(s) • If you only have 1-2% on CICO, those are likely to be kids who need more….

19. Why do you want 7-12% on CICO? • Kids who here-to-for would have gotten nothing (‘til they ‘got worse”) • now get a positive boost of support (sea of ineligibility) • All teachers will expect that every day they will have kids cross their • threshold who need higher rate of positive contact • Quicker/easier to support kids who need Tier 3 • Structure to build transference and generalizing from Social Skills • instructional groups and function-based behavior plans

20. Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions Tertiary Demos *CICO = Check in, Check Out

21. John Greer Elementary School Suspensions and Students Succeeding on CICO

22. CICO with individualized features This is an intervention that adds support to generic CICO. Teachers choose these more individualized options on the reverse request for assistance (RRFA). Teachers are given the option to choose from these features after CICO was not enough support for a student.

23. CICO Individualized Features What it is What it isn’t Changing the goal line one child at a time Changing or adding a goal for one child Changing the goals on the Daily Progress Report for one child or a group of children A meeting with the specialized staff and the teacher changing a student’s DPR. • Options are pre-determined and communicated to all stakeholders. • Secondary systems team designs the options for the building. • Quick & Efficient • A list of specified options teachers can choose from listed on the reverse request for assistance

24. CICO Individualized Features What it is What it isn’t One adult changing/ adding goals or DPR Changing or adding a goal for a group of kids (homework, grades, or a specific behavior). • Used after generic CICO has been tried for a set time (for example 4-6 weeks) and the student has not met the pre-determined goal set for all children. • Options for individualizing the intervention are generic and quick • Uses the same DPR as used in generic CICO

25. Examples of CICO with Individualized Features Example one: Extra check in time before/after lunch with secretary in office Example two: Peer accompanies student to check in at beginning of day and check out at end of day Example three: Check in with supportive adult prior to a difficult class period

26. When would a child have goals that are specific to him/her? This is an intervention that is designed after a Functional Behavioral Assessment is completed and created with the problem solving team as part of a Behavior Intervention Plan. This intervention is specific to the child.

27. Social/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)

28. Brief vs. Complex FBA/BIP Brief • Generic Individual Problem solving Team • Meeting time/day usually already determined • Plan developed quickly/easily Complex • Individualized Youth FBA/BIP Team • Meeting time/day decided by individualized team • Interventions are highly individualized

29. Brief vs. Complex FBA/BIP Brief • Every school has this type of meeting • Behavior intervention plans address only one behavior, typically only in one setting Complex • May be a new type of meeting for schools • Interventions/strategies address multiple settings and/or behaviors

30. Brief vs. Complex FBA/BIP Brief • SWIS data, Daily Progress Report (DPR) points, Functional Assessment interviews • Effectiveness of system monitored by Secondary Systems Planning Team • Data reviewed at least every other week Complex • SWIS data, Daily Progress Report (DPR) points, Functional Assessment interviews, SIMEO Data, direct observation data, additional tools as needed • Effectiveness of system monitored by TertiarySystems Planning Team • Data reviewed at least weekly

31. Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention • Total enrollment of your school? • Number of students accessing CICO? • Number of students on complex function-based or wraparound plans? • Percent of total population of the school?

32. Individualized Teams at the Tertiary Level • Are unique to the individual child & family • Blend the family’s supports with the school representatives who know the child best • Meeting Process • Meet frequently • Regularly develop & review interventions • Facilitator Role • Role of bringing team together • Role of blending perspectives

33. Individualized Comprehensive Teams/Plans • Who? • Youth with multiple needs across home, school, community • Youth with multiple life domain needs • The adults in youth’s life are not effectively • engaged in comprehensive planning • (i.e. adults not getting along very well) • What? • The development of a very unique, individualized, strength-based team & plan with the youth family that is designed to improve quality of life as defined by the youth/family.

34. Individualized, Comprehensive Teams/Plans What Do Tertiary Plans include? Supports and interventions across multiple life domains and settings (i.e. behavior support plans, academic interventions, basic living supports, multi-agency strategies, family supports, community supports, etc.) What’s Different? Natural supports and unique strengths are emphasized in team and plan development. Youth/family access, voice, ownership are critical features. Plans include supports for adults/family, as well as youth.

35. What is Wraparound? • Wraparound is a tool (e.g. a process) used to implement interagency systems of care in achieving better outcomes for youth and their families. • The wraparound process is similar to person-centered planning, the individualized Positive Behavior Support (PBS) planning process.

36. What is Wraparound? • Wraparound is a process for developing family-centered teams and plans that are strength and needs based. • (Not deficit based) • Across multiple settings and life domains. • Wraparound plans include natural supports, are culturally relevant, practical and realistic.

37. Implementing Wraparound: Key Elements Needed for Success • Engaging students, families & teachers • Team development & team ownership • Ensuring student/family/teacher voice • Getting to real (big) needs • Effective interventions • Serious use of strengths • Natural supports • Focus on needs vs. services • Monitoring progress & sustaining • System support buy-in

38. What’s New in Wraparound? • Skill set specificity • Focus on intervention design/effectiveness • Integration with school-wide PBS • Phases to guide implementation/supervision • Data-based decision-making • Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT) • Tools to guide teams: • Home School Community • Education Information Tool

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

40. It Takes a System… …..that builds system capacity for advanced tiers

41. Continuum of Teaming:Systems & Student-Specific • Secondary Systems Planning Team • Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team • Tertiary Systems Planning Team • Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team • Wraparound Team • District Tertiary Leadership Team

42. 3-Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) UniversalTeam Meeting Secondary Systems Team Meeting Problem Solving Team Meeting Tertiary Systems Team Meeting Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one student at a time Uses process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Uses process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Plans schoolwide & classroom supports Check-In Check-Out Universal Support Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound Skills Groups Brief FBA/BIP Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Illinois PBIS Network Rev. 11.19.2012

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

44. Question • Is the idea of separating out functions (progress monitoring, brief problem-solving, complex interventions, etc) new to your districts/schools?

47. Progress Monitoring Secondary/Tertiary InterventionsTeams need to track and monitor interventions by category:1. How many students are receiving each intervention?2. How many students are responding to each intervention?3. What data is used to monitor each intervention type?Tier 2/Tier 3 (Secondary/Tertiary) Tracking Tool

48. Activity : Using Data to Improve Tier 2/Tier 3 Systems of Support Review Tracking Tool & Systems Response Tools. How can these tools help your school(s) to identify strengths and weaknesses of their Tier 2/3 systems of support? How will you encourage/prompt others to use these data for progress monitoring system responses that need to change? How will you encourage/prompt others to use data for progress monitoring Interventions at Tiers 2/3?

49. Universal Screening for Behavior Results

50. Implementation Process Summary: Multiple Gating Procedure (Adapted from Severson et al. 2007) Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students on Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) Gate 1 Pass Gate 1 Gate 2 Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) Using a Research-Validated Tool (e.g., SSBD, BASC-2/BESS, SDQ) Tier 2 Intervention Pass Gate 2