National Survey of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Implementation in Juvenile Corrections Schools: Results and Policy Implications

Introduction

Schools are faced with the problem behaviors of students on a daily basis. To address issues of order and safety in light of scarce resources and time, many schools, including juvenile correctional (JC) schools faced with addressing some of the most serious behavioral and mental health challenges ignore structure and process-oriented changes that may aid in prevention of most problem behavior in lieu of negative and reactive approaches. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is one research-based alternative that includes, but does not solely rely on, disciplinary sanctions. Broadly, PBIS is a proactive, pro-social model for school-wide behavior management that involves general themes of prevention, data based decision making, and support at multiple tiers. Currently, more than 18,000 schools are implementing PBIS across the United States, including more than 50 JC facilities, with adoption and implementation of PBIS in JC expected to grow exponentially in coming years.

Methods

This study involved data collection by way of a survey that focused on the existence of school policy and practice aligned with the multitier PBIS approach. We surveyed principals in JC detention and commitment facility schools nationally. Our primary research questions included: (a) Do JC schools’ behavior approaches align with a three-tiered system of supports and what processes for organizational development are in place to support implementation of effective behavioral practices? (b) To what extent does each JC school reduce and eliminate reactive, punitive, and exclusionary strategies in favor of a positive, proactive, preventive, and skill-building orientation? (c) In those JC schools that have a school-wide leadership team, who is involved and what is their role? (d) Do positive school-wide behavioral expectations exist and if so, how are they communicated, taught, and student learning assessed? (e) How is behavioral data collected and used? (f) How is fidelity assessed to ensure the behavior plan is implemented as intended? and (g) Do JC schools’ members of the leadership team have opportunities to view other schools that effectively implement PBIS?

Results and Conclusions

Overall, 214 principals responded resulting in a 67 percent response rate. Most schools were associated with commitment facilities (n = 164, 76.6%), followed by detention (n = 44, 20.5%) and residential “boot” camps (n = 6, 0.03%). In our poster presentation, we provide a review of survey results and discuss important policy implications related to addressing problematic student behavior and the creation of safe schools.