Barriers and Facilitators to Integrating SWPBIS in Alternative Education Settings With Existing Behavior Management Systems

Abstract

Alternative education (AE) settings such as residential and juvenile justice facilities and self-contained schools are complex settings for students with unique academic and behavioral needs. The schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS) model has proven utility in traditional schools, but little research exists to inform SWPBIS implementation in AE settings. To address this research gap, the researchers conducted two separate focus groups with similar AE settings regarding their integration of SWPBIS with an existing behavior management system. Resulting themes between and within groups are presented in terms of systems, data, and practice. The two settings discussed similar challenges, although their responses to these challenges were in stark contrast, as were the resulting success of SWPBIS integration. Limitations and future directions for researchers are described in addition to specific policy implications.

Keywords

alternative education school-to-prison pipeline S2PP positive behavioral interventions and supports PBIS policy implications

Alternative education (AE) settings are broadly defined and include AE schools within typical schools or in separate facilities governed by public entities (e.g., school district, county, state departments of education) or private entities (e.g., for- or nonprofit), day treatment facilities, 24/7 residential facilities, and secure juvenile justice schools within the larger context of a juvenile facility, and more recently as some charter schools (Aron, 2006; Carver, Lewis, & Tice, 2010; Gottfredson, 2001; Quinn & Poirier, 2006). Thus, AE settings serve a heterogeneous and transient group of students who present multiple and comorbid academic, behavioral, and mental health needs requiring more specialized programming than typically offered within traditional school settings (Carver et al., 2010).

AE settings are being used with increasing frequency to serve students receiving special education services, in particular students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD). One estimate is that students with E/BD make up 33% to 75% of those served in AE settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The National Center on Educational Statistics report that public school districts serve 558,300 students in AE settings, 16.17% (n = 90,300) of which receive special education services (Carver et al., 2010). Students with E/BD have internalizing, externalizing, social, and attention problems (Bilancia & Rescorla, 2005). In addition, behavioral deficits lead to negative outcomes in the school and postschool years (Crews et al., 2007). Such outcomes include academic failure, placement in restrictive settings such as alternative school settings, and school dropout. Students with E/BD demonstrate significantly higher rates of school dropout (26.7%) than their peers with other high-incidence disabilities, with the second highest dropout rate being students with other health impairments at 14.2% (Zablocki & Krezmien, 2012).

In terms of how decisions are made as to which students will be served in AE settings, there is much discussion related to who makes the decision (e.g., Individual Education Plan team, juvenile judge, family/student, human services departments, physicians, disciplinary tribunals), type of decision (e.g., voluntary vs. involuntary), what deficits/excesses triggered the referral process (e.g., behavioral incident at school, in the community, or at home), and ultimately AE setting placement among the array of options (Jolivette, McDaniel, Sprague, Swain-Bradway, & Ennis, in press). One key entry point into AE settings has become school disciplinary policies that mandate suspension, expulsion, and referral to more restrictive placements or to the police for an increasing array of student classroom rule infractions (Krezmien, Leone, Zablocki, & Wells, 2010; Weissman et al., 2008). There is some controversy related to these policies and limited service delivery placement options as some view this as an avenue supporting the “school-to-prison pipeline” (S2PP) phenomenon. This controversy highlights students who (a) are failing academically, (b) are failing socially, (c) present challenging behaviors during school, (d) are of ethnic/minority groups, and (e) have disabilities. For example, Black males are being placed in more and more restrictive AE placements with little chance to return to a more typical and less restrictive setting (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d., 2009; New York Civil Liberties Union, n.d.; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2009). Several recent reports on specific state’s use of such policies, based on state department of education data and other sources, and their potential negativity related to student outcomes have been published that highlight the S2PP phenomenon (e.g., Connecticut: Connecticut Appleseed, 2010; Georgia: Rhodes, Hill, Vadodaria, Carter, & Gold, 2011; Texas: Texas Appleseed, 2007; Virginia: Ciolfi, Shin, & Harris, 2011). In some of these reports, the researchers specifically state that “too many students are . . . placed in alternative programs” (Ciolfi et al., 2011, p. 5) while others allude to it. Such policies have negative long-term student and economic implications, which are alarming given that education is the most economical and effective protective factor against challenging behaviors and the development of delinquency pathways (Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2002).

One recommendation common across the above reports, as well as called for by other educational researchers (e.g., Flower, McDaniel, & Jolivette, 2011; Jolivette et al., in press; Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Myers & Farrell, 2008; Nelson, Jolivette, Leone, & Mathur, 2010; Nelson, Sprague, Jolivette, Smith, & Tobin, 2009; Scott et al., 2002; Simonsen, Jeffrey-Pearsall, Sugai, & McCurdy, 2011), is the implementation of three-tiered positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in both the feeder traditional schools and the AE settings. PBIS is a three-tiered framework for coordinating school supports. The primary-tier, or schoolwide PBIS (SWPBIS), is designed to prevent problem behaviors from occurring by having clearly defined expectations that are consistently taught, monitored, and reinforced (Scott, Gagnon, & Nelson, 2008). SWPBIS enables 80% of students to be successful, even in AE settings (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010). Secondary-tier supports are designed to reduce and reverse problem behaviors currently occurring by providing targeted support to 15% of students. Tertiary-tier supports are designed to reduce problem behaviors exhibited by the 5% of students who need intensive, individualized supports (i.e., functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans, social worker supports, individualized counseling). Within AE settings, it is typical to find a plethora of secondary- and tertiary-tiered supports but not necessarily a unified universal tier (Jolivette et al., 2012; Jolivette et al., in press; Simonsen, Britton, & Young, 2010)

The three-tiered PBIS framework was established from a model of four components that drives implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability, and can be applied within SWPBIS: (a) systems, (b) data, (c) practices, and (d) outcomes (Sugai & Horner, 2002). Effectively integrating systems, data, and practices is critical to obtaining the desired schoolwide and student outcomes. Schools begin by acknowledging and refining systems that support school staff and positively affect school culture (e.g., administrative support, problem-solving capabilities). Gathering and analyzing various levels of data account for the second critical component of SWPBIS. Schoolwide behavioral data serve as the primary unit of analysis, including types of problem behavior, location, time, and so forth. Varied and effective behavioral strategies and interventions and the resources required to provide them are developed and organized through team-based problem solving, accounting for the “practice” component of the SWPBIS model. Successful integration of systems, data, and practices leads to positive academic and behavioral outcomes for students (Sugai & Horner, 2002). The same four components are integral to SWPBIS success in AE settings but are required to be delivered and managed more intensely than in traditional settings (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Simonsen et al., 2011) due to differential contextual factors (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010). AE settings require additional opportunities for team-based problem solving and professional development (Simonsen et al., 2011). Strategies and interventions that have been validated as effective in traditional schools require modification to meet the specific needs of the students served in AE settings to compensate for data that it is not sensitive to slow progress typical of AE settings (Simonsen et al., 2011).

There is preliminary evidence that SWPBIS (e.g., Jolivette et al., 2012; Simonsen et al., 2010) and functionally indicated secondary-tier PBIS interventions (e.g., Check in/Check out: Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski, & Johnson, 2012; Swoszowski, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Heflin, 2012; Check, Connect, Expect: McDaniel, Houchins, Jolivette, & Robinson, 2012) are effective in decreasing inappropriate student behaviors within AE settings. However, the adoption and adaptation of PBIS across the tiers into AE settings with existing universal-tier behavioral management programs are an empirical unknown, and a difficult and complex process (for a process for infusing PBIS framework into existing practices, see Jolivette et al., in press). Even with limited empirical data on the effectiveness and feasibility of PBIS, in particular SWPBIS in AE settings, a consistent call for action from advocacy groups and organizations and educational researchers will eventually have policy implications for AE settings and those who govern them. In fact, as part of the various reports cited above, specific policy implications are offered, which affect state and local adoption and adaptation of PBIS to address the S2PP in improving the overall quality and consistency of three-tiered services provided to students in AE settings.

The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore the perceptions and outcomes (i.e., SWPBIS adoption and/or adaptation) of staff in AE settings who were trained in SWPBIS serving students with E/BD and are governed by two different local school districts. Specifically, the research questions addressed were the following:

Research Question 1: What were AE staff perceptions of SWPBIS and the potential for adopting and/or adapting SWPBIS within their AE setting’s existing universal-tier behavior management systems?

Research Question 2: What were the barriers to implementing SWPBIS in the AE setting?

Research Question 3: What were the benefits for infusing SWPBIS into the existing systems?

Research Question 4: What policy implications could be made based on the calls for PBIS in AE settings and the focus group data?

Method

Settings and Participants

This study took place in two separate school districts that are a part of the same statewide network of AE placement options for students with severe E/BD in the Southeast. As district-governed programs participating in the statewide network, both programs are accredited and have implemented a leveled behavior management system that (a) incorporated a token economy linked to individual behavioral objectives for each student who may earn points for displaying expected, prosocial behavior and then use the points to purchase tangible items or privileges; (b) addressed individual behavior deficits; and (c) had specific protocols to address individual crises. Students entering these AE settings began on the lowest program level, and as student behavior improved, they moved to higher levels with opportunities to earn more privileges and transition options to either satellite classrooms or their homeschools. Staff in both AE settings were trained on SWPBIS separately by consultants separate from the researchers. Leadership teams from both programs completed an initial 2-day SWPBIS training with follow-up support for 1 year. Program A abandoned SWPBIS prior to the completion of the 1st year of follow-up support. Program B continues to request and receive support for their SWPBIS model.

Program A was in a suburban area outside a large metropolitan city and had two school campuses and several satellite classrooms in traditional schools throughout the district. Program A served students in kindergarten through 12th grade, all referred due to their inappropriate behaviors in traditional schools. Exit criteria for Program A involved progress toward predetermined, individualized behavioral goals and movement from the lowest level to the middle level of support. Program B was in a small, rural city and had one main campus with no satellite classrooms. This program also served students in kindergarten through 12th grades with severe E/BD with the same referral process as Program A. Exit criteria for Program B also utilized progress toward predetermined, individualized behavioral goals, but because Program B did not have satellite transition classrooms, students must have reached stability at the highest level (of three levels) to exit the AE setting. The range for length of stay for both programs was similar and varied between less than a month to several years. Additional information regarding specific lengths of stay and rates of successful transition back to mainstream schools was not data the schools collected (see Table 1 for AE Program descriptive information). Three AE staff from Program A and seven AE staff from Program B participated in two separate focus groups (see Table 2).

Table 1.

AE Program Descriptive Information.

Program	Community type	Enrollment (maximum)	Grades served	Campuses (n)	Satellite classrooms	Teacher/student ratio^a	Type of support staff	AE staff trained in SWPBIS
A	Urban	540	K-12	2	Yes	2:10	Psych, SW, I.I.	Yes
B	Rural	410	K-12	1	No	2:10	Psych, SW, I.I.	Yes

Note. AE = alternative education; SWPBIS = schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support; Psych = school psychologist; SW = social worker; I.I. = intensive interventionist.

One teacher and one paraprofessional.

Table 2.

Participant Descriptive Information.

Program/staff	Position	Administrative position	Years working in AE setting	Member of PBIS leadership team
A
Staff 1	PC	Yes	9	Yes
Staff 2	Director	Yes	19	Yes
Staff 3	PC	Yes	8	Yes
Staff 4	ST	No	12	Yes
Staff 5	Teacher	No	20	Yes
Staff 6	Teacher	No	6	Yes
B
Staff 1	BA	Yes	13	No
Staff 2	BA	Yes	10	Yes
Staff 3	PIS	Yes	2	No

Note. AE = alternative education; PBIS = positive behavioral interventions and support; PC = program coordinator; ST = support therapist; BA = building administrator; PIS = program improvement specialist.

Focus Group and Data Analyses Processes

Two separate focus groups were conducted with one at Program A and one at Program B. Each focus group followed the same procedures. First, AE staff from each program who were knowledgeable regarding SWPBIS were asked to voluntarily participate in a focus group. Second, prior to the focus group, the researcher described the procedures and obtained consent from each participant. Third, the researcher started the digital recorder. Fourth, each focus group was asked the same questions with follow-up questions asked as needed. The focus group questions included the following:

Are any of you on the PBIS leadership team?

What do you understand the purpose of implementing PBIS at your school to be?

What are your opinions of the schoolwide expectations that your school uses?

What are your opinions of the points used as part of the token economy?

Do you think students at your school understand the expectations?

Do you think students at your school understand the SWPBIS reinforcement system?

Do you think students at your school buy-into the SWPBIS model?

Do you think the other staff at your school buy-into the SWPBIS model?

What are the most challenging aspects of implementing SWPBIS implementation at your school?

What are the benefits of SWPBIS at your school?

What changes would you suggest be made to SWPBIS at your school?

Fifth, each digital recording was transcribed, and then each transcription was verified again against the digital recording by a second researcher to ensure transcription accuracy. Sixth, the Constant Comparative Method was used to identify themes of the focus groups both between and within programs. Two researchers independently evaluated each focus group transcript for themes, with 6 to 14 themes initially identified across the programs to determine interrater reliability. Seventh, two researchers then compared the independently identified themes and developed one set of themes for the focus group sessions related to systems, data, and practices. Three themes within each area were identified across the two programs.

Results

The results of the two focus groups are described below in terms of commonalities and differences within SWPBIS systems, data, and practice.

Systems

Difficulty with staff buy-in

Difficulties for both AE programs to obtain overall AE buy-in related to all aspects of SWPBIS from implementation to monitoring, and affected fidelity of SWPBIS implementation and potential effectiveness. Both AE programs addressed this theme differently. Program A stated, “You need everyone on the same page, all the leadership part of it and we didn’t have that.” This program discussed issues with poor staff buy-in and thought it was a result from a top-down management approach in the school. Related to poor staff buy-in, Program A expressed staff resistance to combine SWPBIS with their existing system, which continues as an ongoing issue for both morale and program effectiveness. Program A stated that they approached this issue reactively. Program B also highlighted difficulties with staff buy-in, specifically with the initial implementation of SWPBIS. However, the positive and proactive approach taken by Program B eliminated buy-in issues quickly. The Program B PBIS leadership team met consistently to address issues with buy-in and developed strategies to actively promote staff buy-in. Program B found the primary reason for lack of staff buy-in with SWPBIS implementation was that it created more work for teachers and lacked efficiency. Teachers had to develop and provide privileges for students earning SWPBIS reinforcement in addition to their other teaching expectations. Program B explained, “What we’re trying to do now is take so much pressure off the teachers of constantly having to plan activities. That was killing our buy-in too because it was so much work.” Currently, the PBIS leadership is developing ideas for reinforcement activities, and the PBIS coach is responsible for providing those privileges and activities to students who earn them to make their SWPBIS more efficient.

Problem solving through teaming

This theme was clearly present for Program B for SWPBIS maintenance and improvement for the PBIS leadership team, administration, and the program as a whole. Throughout the focus group, Program B discussed problem-solving strategies they applied to identify areas for focus and methods in which to improve them, including (a) staff and student buy-in, (b) data collection and monitoring, (c) reinforcement systems, and (d) mechanisms to sustain funding for SWPBIS activities. For example, they stated, “We’ve had several good meetings about ideas about the way that we can approach the incentive system, and we’ve tried to work ideas about items that were free, or activities that didn’t cost anything.” Program A did not discuss problem solving through teaming related to SWPBIS.

Disjointed universal model

Both Programs A and B found infusing SWPBIS with their existing behavior management system difficult. The two programs had been implementing the same existing system for more than 10 years. Both discussed different reasons for adopting SWPBIS, with Program A stating they were doing it because it was an expectation of the State Department of Education, while Program B discussed needing a more positive and proactive approach to address schoolwide expectations instead of just focusing on the individualized behavioral objectives of each student. Program A described difficulties integrating the SWPBIS program (i.e., “I don’t think you can have both of them coincide together [PBIS and existing system] . . . either we’re committed to a particular type of management system or we’re not. I think it’s kind of hard to do a cross commitment, and it kind of translated right on down the line”). However, Program B initially found the integration of the two difficult but detailed successes with the adoption of SWPBIS following consistent problem solving and teamwork. Program B explained, “It was hard for us to turn that ship, but when we got [the overall framework of] PBS we were able to say, okay, this is what it’s supposed to look like.”

Data

Transparent data sharing

Program A did not mention gathering data to be shared with faculty and staff for improvement purposes nor sharing data with non-PBIS leadership team members. Conversely, Program B described their process for collecting, organizing, and using behavioral data schoolwide as initially difficult, but their process became gradually more effective and feasible over time through problem-solving teaming (e.g., “It’s like we got a little bit better every time, so then we would tie it back to the data from the previous month to try to decrease those behaviors that were popping up the prior month”). Throughout the initial difficulties to gather and use data, the leadership team maintained the importance of this component. Program B continued to gather and share data with the leadership team, administration, school, and grade-level teams.

Continuous, purposeful assessment for improvement

Both programs described using data as a source to inform improvement and continuation of SWPBIS. Program A detailed their intended effort:

We identified ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the PBIS program and we also let people know that if this program doesn’t support a blend with our existing program that we would go back to the table and make a decision to not use PBIS.

Following the perceived failure of SWPBIS by Program A within the 1st year of implementation conducted without fidelity, Program A discontinued SWPBIS and returned to implementing their previous behavior management system. Evidence of the lack of fidelity of implementation by Program A includes the following: (a) Behavioral expectations were not displayed throughout the school or in any classrooms, (b) students did not know the behavioral expectations, and (c) the agreed-on ticket reinforcement system was never put in place. Program B identified specific data used to assess fidelity based on the school adoption of SWPBIS (e.g., “That’s how we started. We did the school safety survey, the benchmarks of quality survey, we did the self-assessment, we’ve done the TIC [Team Implementation Checklist] so we have met all the requirements to be implementing with fidelity”). Informal evidence of fidelity of SWPBIS included the following: (a) Behavioral expectations were posted throughout the school and in classrooms, (b) the ticket-based reinforcement system was understood by staff and students, and (c) students received tickets for meeting behavioral expectations. In addition, Program B described using those data to problem solve and make adjustments to their SWPBIS (e.g., “We have revamped and revamped and revamped”). Program B continues to use SWPBIS as a means to provide three-tiered supports to all students.

Analyzing data to answer questions

Both programs planned on collecting data that could be used to answer questions regarding SWPBIS and overall effects on student behavior. Program A stated, “We wanted to look at who the students were earning tickets from, what location and was it appropriate to that behavior but the students didn’t earn enough tickets,” so they stopped collecting and analyzing their data. Conversely, Program B described a fluid, ongoing process of collecting data that were consistently analyzed and used to answer questions both as a leadership team and shared schoolwide with all AE staff. They described this process by saying, “We look at it every month, and then we make decisions based on that” and “We review the SWIS [Schoolwide Information System; office discipline referral] data with the whole school, with the staff. It doesn’t stop with the PBS team.”

Practice

Renewed emphasis on consistency

During the focus group discussion with Program A, it became clear that they only considered integrating SWPBIS within their existing behavior management system as a means to test for goodness of fit, not necessarily to adopt it permanently, while Program B approached the integration with dedication and flexibility. Program A described inconsistencies from the initial phases of integration: “It was too much at once. It just didn’t feel like we were all starting on the same page to me. Everything was so fragmented.” Program B described integrating SWPBIS as providing a foundation for consistency: “I think the benefit has still been its constant, when you’ve got the rule on this hallway, when you get to the cafeteria, you’ve still got the same rule. The constant of the posters, everybody’s the same.” They continued by stating,

What it has allowed us to do is have a common language in terms of our expectations . . . so the students can always have that reminder of what our expectations are . . . and it’s a way to start that dialog . . . and use that consistent language from classroom to classroom.

Approaches to tiered supports

When describing the integration of SWPBIS with the existing behavior management system, both programs discussed tiered supports but in different contexts. Program A discussed where SWPBIS and the existing system fit within tiers at the most basic level:

Is (the existing system) a Tier 3 intervention or is it more of the schoolwide intervention, and while I think it could be used as a Tier 3 in a regular school in just a classroom kind of thing, I think the way we implement it, it is more of a school wide system. We’re more tier four, more focused and we have to be more specialized.

Program B discussed tiered supports at Tiers 1 and 2 within SWPBIS. By describing the integration of the two models as “the difference in cashing in points and access to the PBS activity which would have been for everybody, Tier 1 intervention.” In addition, Program B described recently implementing a Tier 2 intervention: “We look at it both ways, Tier 2 being kids that need more intervention behaviorally and academically.” Thus, Program B was able to differentiate SWPBIS from the other tiers.

Designing flexible reinforcement systems

For both programs, integrating a reinforcement system as part of SWPBIS was challenging. For Program A, the schoolwide reinforcement system became another barrier for staff “that got really complicated and time consuming that’s where we started losing staff’s interest.” They went on to say,

It’s a teaching system, we didn’t want it to fade back to somebody just handing a kid a ticket, we wanted those teaching elements to be maintained. The fear was running them simultaneously, which is easier, giving a ticket or teaching.

However, through collecting, analyzing, and using data to make team-based decisions, Program B found a way to integrate the two reinforcement systems—one for schoolwide behavioral expectations and one for individual behavioral objectives. For schoolwide behavioral expectations, they explained, “We said to soar like an eagle is to be safe, respectful, and responsible and the teacher would turn in 3 eagle wings per month and we acknowledge those students” and for individual behavioral objectives, “We use the model which is based on a token economy system and they have point sheets . . . they access their privilege menu using their positive points.”

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

While the current study provides important and timely insight into the barriers and facilitators of SWPBIS implementation in AE settings, this study is not without limitations. First, the perspectives presented in this pilot study were solely those of key stakeholders including administrators and PBIS leadership team members. Future researchers should also consider the perspectives of teachers and school staff members not on the leadership team. This extension would provide further insight into SWPBIS implementation practices and understanding of SWPBIS from multiple perspectives. The data collected in this study include small numbers of focus group participants from each school. Future researchers should include more focus group participants, including a group of teachers representative of the whole school. Furthermore, this study serves as merely a starting point toward effective PBIS implementation in AE settings. Although the evidence for SWPBIS implementation in mainstream schools is strong, additional research is necessary in these complex school settings. Finally, the current study utilized the Constant Comparative Method with focus group data. Additional researchers of AE settings should include quantitative data regarding SWPBIS fidelity of implementation and student outcomes associated with effective implementation.

The singular goal of AE settings is to target academic and behavioral interventions to deficit areas, allowing for successful transition back to the mainstream school. As previously stated, the policies and services of exclusionary placements such as AE settings are viewed as ineffective. Therefore, identifying and implementing effective strategies and interventions are critical for increasing successful transitions back to mainstream schools.

AE Setting Policy Recommendations

This study clarified areas of strength and focus within SWPBIS integration in AE settings for systems, data, and practices, specifically with regard to (a) staff buy-in, (b) integrating PBIS with existing behavior management systems, and (c) increased levels of demand on school staff members.

The importance of schoolwide buy-in was highlighted through the differences in success between the two programs. Program A was less successful in implementing and adapting SWPBIS to meet the needs of their school and viewed their attempt to implement SWPBIS only as a test of goodness of fit, lacking dedication from administration. Members of the leadership team stated that PBIS could not be successful at their school and therefore they did not react to issues in a systematic and data-driven way as issues arose. The lack of dedication from administration at the onset of SWPBIS implementation affected staff buy-in and therefore fidelity to SWPBIS, ultimately leading to abandonment of SWPBIS altogether. Program B, however, was more successful in implementing, adapting, and sustaining SWPBIS to meet their student’s needs within an AE setting. This success began with initial buy-in. Through the perspectives of the administration and leadership team members in the focus groups, the importance of buy-in was evident from the beginning of SWPBIS implementation. This initial buy-in led to dedication and perseverance when integrating the SWPBIS framework with their existing model. Their responses demonstrated that they used active, data-based problem solving to approach issues in implementation. They readily addressed barriers based on the students’ data and feedback from staff members. Buy-in and administrative supports are critical components of effective SWPBIS adoption and implementation in AE schools.

Integrating PBIS with existing behavior management systems such as the general token economy, level system model used by Programs A and B is a difficult task. Program B viewed this task as an ongoing process and valued both PBIS and the existing model. Their responses conveyed an openness to adapt SWPBIS to fit the complex needs of their students with E/BD and as a means to introduce consistency of expectations across staff. However, Program A appeared wedded to their 15-year-old existing behavior management system and resisted adaptations to it. Although administrators for Program A viewed value in integrating PBIS, ultimately the complex task of integrating the two systems was too difficult, and both administrators and team leaders decided to default back to implementing the existing system solely. The token economy component of the existing behavior management system and the individualized nature of the two AE settings contributed to making successful integration difficult. Specifically, the token economy systems already in place created a reinforcement competition. Students could earn (and lose) points through their token economy system for individual behavior goals and earn tickets for schoolwide expectations. Two different economies had to be established for successful integration of cashing in points and tickets. Program B was able to simplify and adapt their existing system within the SWPBIS framework. When implementing PBIS with existing behavior management systems, it is important that leadership teams work to create ways in which the two systems may compliment each other or synthesize the two to prevent direct competition with each other. Successful integration of existing behavior management systems and SWPBIS is a critical policy component for AE schools.

Finally, school staff perceptions are an integral component of efforts to reform or improve schools (Greenfield, Rinaldi, Proctor, & Cardarelli, 2010). Insight gained from those involved must guide future efforts when implementation fails to sustain or the reform effort is not a good fit. Evidence of school staff fatigue became apparent from the perspectives used in the current research study. Although initial buy-in most likely affected the lack of follow through during the process of implementing the two models, the strain on school staff members working in demanding settings such as AE settings remains. It is important that school administrators know the climate of their school and the limits for additional complexities in their day. Participants from Program B described having to work diligently at their school reform efforts, but the strain of doing so was not as apparent as the descriptions of the staff responses in Program A. Program A may have been strained prior to attempting SWPBIS implementation and with the lack of buy-in and complexity of integrating PBIS with an existing model.

Local Policy Recommendations

To begin, AE districts and school administrators should take full advantage of any state-level or university PBIS support provided. When PBIS training is available, AE districts and schools should consider participation long-term across the three tiers, including electing a strong leadership team to promote the successful training and implementation of SWPBIS. Even if statewide training is not available, they still need to adopt research-based, proactive and preventive practices to better meet the needs within their AE setting, including both students and staff (Connecticut Appleseed, 2010; Texas Appleseed, 2007). Research-based practices are included within the PBIS framework. Another critical component of PBIS is the use of data for decision making, which AE settings should focus on given all the services the students receive and staff provide. This study highlights the importance of gathering and using data to make decisions. Program A did not gather useful data to apply to data-based decision making, and they continued to gather data that were tied to their existing behavior management system, which was not useful for SWPBIS decision making. Program B valued data collection and utilized data-based decision making effectively to guide services for students. Current data on student behavioral outcomes and staff fidelity of implementation always should be used to inform practices at the school and district level and be used when the PBIS leadership team makes decisions (Scott et al., 2002). Furthermore, data must be transportable so that it can inform student supports as they transition back to their homeschool, a critical goal of AE settings (Simonsen et al., 2010). Finally, schools should adopt practices and procedures with a focus on sustainability. These practices can be used over time to promote a philosophy of prevention, which is an essential component of school culture in AE settings.

State-Level Policy Recommendations

There are several considerations for states when trying to improve the discipline practices within AE settings. To begin, states should consider statewide or districtwide adoption of SWPBIS. Researchers have demonstrated that a proactive, positive approach to school discipline is more successful in reducing problem behaviors in both traditional settings and AE settings (e.g., Jolivette et al., 2012). If states provide expert content (i.e., PBIS, AE, behavior) leadership in this endeavor and ongoing, on-site professional development and technical support at both the district and school levels, AE settings may be more successful in implementing SWPBIS with their vulnerable populations. Such support would provide local building administrators with the technical assistance needed not only for the school team leading the SWPBIS charge but also for the administrator himself or herself throughout the process. In this study, the administrator of Program B continued to support the team while the Program A administrator withdrew support within the 1st year. Outside support from the state may have resulted in a different outcome with Program A. Some states do provide state-level PBIS supports (see www.pbis.org); however, their short- and long-term effectiveness and specific assistance to AE programs is unknown.

A related consideration is that consistent and relevant data need to be collected and analyzed related to the behavior of students and the practices (e.g., SWPBIS, token economies, and level systems) of administrators and faculty in AE settings. In particular, data on the number of referrals to AE settings, the length of placement, services provided, and discipline issues for each student served in AE settings are greatly needed (Connecticut Appleseed, 2010) to assess student outcomes. In addition, data are needed on the longitudinal results of receiving services in AE settings and the availability for transition to less restrictive environments, as current scant data have highlighted a connection to the S2PP (e.g., Georgia: Rhodes et al., 2011). In this study, neither program currently collected these data. The reactive disciplinary measures, such as suspension, expulsions, and referral to AE settings used by many, have not been successful in reducing student problem behavior in schools. In fact, they have been shown to contribute to the S2PP, in particular for male students who are part of minority groups (e.g., Ciolfi et al., 2011). These data coupled with mandates for proactive and preventive approaches to discipline make the adoption and adaptation of SWPBIS in AE settings of paramount importance (Connecticut Appleseed, 2010).

Findings for the above study coupled with recommendations in the literature on adoption and adaptation, and the recommendations in the current literature on the use of PBIS in AE settings (Flower et al., 2011; Jolivette et al., 2012; Jolivette et al., in press; Simonsen et al., 2010; Simonsen et al., 2011) alongside advocacy and policy recommendations call for several policy changes at both the state and local levels.

Conclusion

AE settings serve a heterogeneous and transient group of students who present multiple and comorbid risk factors (Carver et al., 2010). In addition, AE settings have been linked to the S2PP. SWPBIS, a proactive and preventive approach to school discipline, can be implemented with success in AE settings (Jolivette et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2002; Simonsen et al., 2010) and may be an appropriate means to minimize continued involvement in the S2PP. The goal of SWPBIS and the adoption of research-based strategies in AE settings are to improve services in these settings to better meet the needs of students. However, success requires AE districts and schools to not only adopt but also adapt traditional SWPBIS to better meet their student’s and staff needs. This study highlights multiple factors in AE school policies that are tied to local and state policy recommendations including the importance of (a) gathering useful data and practicing data-based decision making, (b) securing initial and continued buy-in and support for SWPBIS, (c) adapting SWPBIS for complex AE settings, and (d) providing professional development and assistance for AE school staff to implement SWPBIS with fidelity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2009). School-to-prison pipeline: Talking points. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline-talking-points

American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Locating the school-to-prison pipeline. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file966_35553.pdf

Aron

(2006). An overview of alternative education. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Bilancia

S. D.

Rescorla

(2005). Stability of behavioral and emotional problems over 6 years in children ages 4 to 5 or 6 to 7 at time 1. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 149–161.

Carver

P. R.

Lewis

Tice

(2010). Alternative schools and programs for public school students at risk of educational failure: 2007-2008 (NCES 2010-026). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Christle

C. A.

Nelson

C. M.

Jolivette

(2002). Prevention of antisocial and violent behavior in youth: A review of the literature. National Center for Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice. Available from http://www.edjj.org

Ciolfi

A. A.

Shin

Harris

(2011, November). Educate every child: Promoting positive solutions to school discipline in Virginia (Report by the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Just Children Program). Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center.

Connecticut Appleseed. (2010, February). Keep kids in school: Improving school discipline. Retrieved from www.ctappleseed.org/projects/pipeline.shtml

Crews

S. D.

Bender

Cook

C. R.

Gresham

F. M.

Kern

Vanderwood

(2007). Risk and protective factors of emotional and/or behavioral disorders in children and adolescents: A mega-analytic synthesis. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 64–77.

10.

Ennis

R. P.

Jolivette

Swoszowski

N. C.

Johnson

M. L.

(2012). Secondary prevention efforts at a residential facility for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Function-based check-in, check-out. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 29, 79–102.

11.

Flower

McDaniel

S. C.

Jolivette

(2011). A literature review of research quality and effective practices in alternative education settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 489–510.

12.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(2001). Delinquency prevention in schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University.

13.

Greenfield

Rinaldi

Proctor

C. P.

Cardarelli

(2010). Teacher’s perceptions of a response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 47–63.

14.

Jolivette

McDaniel

S. C.

Sprague

J. R.

Swain-Bradway

Ennis

R. P.

(2012). Embedding the PBIS framework into the complex array of practices within AE settings: A decision-making approach. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 15–29.

15.

Jolivette

Nelson

C. M.

(2010). Adapting positive behavioral interventions and supports for secure juvenile justice settings: Improving facility-wide behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 28–42.

16.

Jolivette

Patterson

D. P.

Swoszowski

N. C.

McDaniel

S. C.

Kennedy

Ennis

R. P.

(2012). SWPBIS in a residential school for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: First years of implementation and maintenance follow-up focus groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

17.

Krezmien

M. P.

Leone

P. E.

Zablocki

M. S.

Wells

C. S.

(2010). Juvenile court referrals and the public schools: Nature and extent of the practice in five states. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 273–293.

18.

McDaniel

S. C.

Houchins

D. E.

Jolivette

Robinson

(2012). Check, connect, and expect with elementary students in an alternative education setting. Manuscript submitted for publication.

19.

Myers

D. M.

Farrell

A. F.

(2008). Reclaiming lost opportunities: Apply public health models in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1159–1177.

20.

Nelson

C. M.

Jolivette

Leone

P. E.

Mathur

S. R.

(2010). Meeting the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth with behavioral challenges: The promise of juvenile justice. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 70–80.

21.

Nelson

C. M.

Sprague

J. R.

Jolivette

Smith

C. R.

Tobin

(2009). Positive behavior support in alternative education, community-based mental health, and juvenile justice settings. In Sailor

Dunlap

Sugai

Horner

(Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior intervention and support (pp. 465–496). New York, NY: Springer.

22.

New York Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). School to prison pipeline. Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/schooltoprison

23.

Quinn

M. M.

Poirier

J. M.

(2006). Study of effective alternative education programs: Final grant report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

24.

Rhodes

Hill

Vadodaria

Carter

Gold

(2011, June). Effective student discipline: Keeping kids in class. Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. Retrieved from http://gaappleseed.org/keepingkidsinclass/report.pdf

25.

Scott

T. M.

Gagnon

J. C.

Nelson

C. M.

(2008). School-wide systems of positive behavior support: A framework for reducing school crime and violence. Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 1, 259–272.

26.

Scott

T. M.

Nelson

C. M.

Liaupsin

Jolivette

Christle

C. A.

Riney

(2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive behavior support: Effective prevention practices. Education & Treatment of Children, 25, 532–551.

27.

Simonsen

Britton

Young

(2010). School-wide positive behavior support in a non-public school setting: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 180–191.

28.

Simonsen

Jeffrey-Pearsall

Sugai

McCurdy

(2011). Alternative setting-wide positive behavior support. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 213–224.

29.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2009). Legal action: Stopping the school-to-prison pipeline by enforcing special education law. Retrieved from http://www.splcenter.org/legal/schoolhouse.jsp

30.

Sugai

Horner

(2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.

31.

Swoszowski

N. C.

Jolivette

Fredrick

L. D.

Heflin

L. J.

(2012). Check in/check out: Effects on students with emotional and behavioral disorders with attention- or escape-maintained behavior in a residential facility. Exceptionality, 20, 163–178.

32.

Texas Appleseed. (Oct. 2007). Texas’ school-to-prison pipeline: Dropout to incarceration. Retrieved from http://www.texasappleseed.net/pdf/Pipeline%20Report.pdf

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

34.

Weissman

Cregor

Gainsborough

Kief

Leone

P. E.

Sullivan

(2008). The right to education in the juvenile and criminal justice systems in the United States. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Human Rights Council, United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/right-education-juvenile-and-criminal-justice-systems-united-states

35.

Zablocki

Krezmien

M. P.

(2012). Drop-out predictors among students with high-incidence disabilities: A national longitudinal and transitional study 2 analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1044207311427726