Abstract
The process of selecting, implementing, and scaling-up evidence-based practices is a major focus and difficult accomplishment for states. Renewed commitment to improving student outcomes has led directly to the need for effective practices implemented at scale. The funding decisions made at state, regional, and district levels remain a key to large-scale implementation of effective practices. In this article, we summarize the funding decisions of nine states that implemented School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) across at least 500 schools or 30% of the schools in the state. A survey about funding sources, funding levels, and funding decisions was completed by the key implementers in each state, and a follow-up interview was used to clarify and confirm initial information. The results indicate that different states used different funding approaches, but in general, funding of SWPBIS was provided predominantly through special education sources and that initial demonstrations led to larger scale implementation when state policy makers developed creative procedures for using multiple funding sources within a unified implementation effort. Implications for funding the scaling of evidence-based practices are discussed.
The goal of education in the United States is to provide all students a free and appropriate public education so they may become active and important members and contributors to society. Funding education to achieve this goal, however, is a complex process, with interests, policies, and dollars originating from and flowing among local education agencies (LEAs), state education agencies (SEAs), and federal government agencies (e.g., U.S. Departments of Education, Health, and Justice). A key consideration affecting this process is the identification and implementation of evidence-based practices (Cook & Cook, 2011). Unfunded mandates, competing priorities, insufficient resources, and limited time for preparation and practice are a few of the factors that influence funding supports for adoption of evidence-based practices, especially for students with learning and/or behavior challenges or chronically low-performing schools and districts.
Few studies, however, have examined how states approach funding decisions, especially, in the context of sustained and scaled implementation of evidence-based practices (Sawyer, Holland, & Detgen, 2008). In a political climate of decreased funding and increased emphasis on outcome-based accountability, SEAs need this information to inform critical funding decisions related to selection, adoption, and long-term implementation of evidence-based practices and programs.
Traditionally, adoption of a practice has focused on costs related to purchasing materials, securing trainers, and conducting professional development events. For example, attention is on scheduling preset quarterly in-service days or securing substitute teachers to allow release time for teachers. Unfortunately, this approach to professional development has been insufficient for establishing localized capacity for accurate and fluent practice implementation (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Lewis, Barrett, Sugai, & Horner, 2010).
In response, large-scale funding and implementation of evidence-based practices has evolved into more comprehensive approaches that emphasize effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance (Fixen et al., 2005). Professional development at the LEA and SEA levels has been expanded to stress (a) continuous and embedded leadership team training that is translated into school-specific action plans; (b) internal coaching functions that prompt and reinforce essential training elements; (c) development of school-based behavioral expertise, especially for students with severe problem behavior; (d) companion data systems that monitor implementation fidelity and guide adjustments based on student progress; (e) establishment of implementation demonstrations; (f) obtaining recurring multiyear funding; (g) fostering of political support and visibility; and (h) institutionalization of implementation through policy development (Lewis et al., 2010; Sugai et al., 2010).
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is an example of an implementation framework that comprises evidenced practices and has been implemented in more than 18,000 U.S. schools (Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP] Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [PBIS], www.pbis.org). Early development and demonstration of SWPBIS was supported by technical assistance from the National Center on PBIS, which was funded by the OSEP in the U.S. Department of Education to replace school overuse of reactive disciplinary practices with evidence-based behavioral practices that were more preventive, inclusive, and constructive in nature for all students. Grounded in behavioral theory and behavior analytic practices, SWPBIS is characterized by (a) universal screening, (b) continuous progress monitoring, (c) leadership team problem solving and action planning, (d) continuum of evidence-based behavioral practices, (e) monitoring of implementation fidelity, and (g) data-based decision making. Research supports the effectiveness of SWPBIS.
SWPBIS is also characterized through its emphasis on three interconnected tiers of prevention and intervention forming a continuum of environmental supports. The primary or universal tier includes clearly articulated behavioral expectations that are directly taught to all students along with frequent acknowledgment of student mastery of key behavioral expectations. The secondary or Tier II includes additional interventions and support to assist those students not responding to universal supports alone. Tertiary or Tier III includes individualized interventions for students who have not responded to universal or Tier II interventions and supports or in situations where the behavioral concerns are intense and chronic. Tier III interventions are typically guided by a functional behavior assessment (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). SWPBIS is associated with overall school-wide decreases in problem behaviors (e.g., Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Horner et al., 2009;), increased positive school climate (e.g., Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009), increased teacher self-efficacy (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012), increased academic achievement (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2009), and other relevant school-related outcomes (e.g., reduced bullying; see Horner et al., 2010, for a complete review).
Purpose
Given the rapid school-level uptake of SWPBIS, LEAs and SEAs have developed organizational structures and implementation functions to sustain high fidelity implementation and support continued scaling-up of SWPBIS. An important question is how LEAs and SEAs secured and used funding to support initial adoption, sustained implementation, as well as systemic and effective expansion across schools.
Following Shipan and Volden’s (2008) contention that “policy adoption based on learning about effective policies elsewhere leads to good outcomes” (p. 840), the purpose of this study was to examine how SEAs secured and used funding for implementing and sustaining SWPBIS. This information would be useful in guiding and enhancing SEA and LEA sustained adoption and effective scaling-up of evidence-based practice frameworks, like SWPBIS. Nine high-implementation states were selected, and key personnel were surveyed and interviewed to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What sources of funding have exemplar states used to fund initial implementation and scale-up of SWPBIS?
Research Question 2: What was the process for funding initial SWPBIS implementation?
Research Question 3: What was the process for funding scale-up of SWPBIS implementation?
Research Question 4: What recommendations do exemplar states have for other states working to initiate or scale-up state-level funding of SWPBIS?
Method
Sample
Although all states are currently implementing SWPBIS to some degree, nine states that had evidence of systemic implementation capacity were selected by the research team using the following criteria:
Presence of a state-level SWPBIS coordinator (or related position), who had regular and direct contact with a member of the research team to ensure the identification of an appropriate and knowledgeable informant.
Minimum of 500 schools or 30% of schools implementing SWPBIS by the Fall of 2011.
Minimum of 5 years of implementation in collaboration with the National Technical Assistance Center for PBIS.
Nine states met all three criteria: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oregon. The number of schools and percentage of all schools within each state are provided in Table 1.
Number and Percentage of Schools Implementing SWPBIS for the Nine Included States.
Note. All data provided by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). SWPBIS = School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
A codirector (Drs. Sugai, Horner, or Lewis) from the National PBIS Center identified and contacted key informants (e.g., PBIS coordinator) from each state to confirm they had (a) necessary requisite knowledge and experience about SWPBIS implementation within their state, including at least 5 years of SWPBIS experience, (b) working knowledge of state-level SWPBIS funding, and (c) information about the study, including goals and timelines.
A single informant for each state was selected except for Colorado, which had two informants, and Missouri, which had three. The average experience in leadership and/or involvement with state implementation of SWPBIS was 11 years. All informants held positions in their state’s department of education (e.g., State SWPBIS Coordinator) or in organizations that coordinated statewide SWPBIS efforts (e.g., university-based center).
Procedures
Survey
A survey was developed for completion by state informants and focused on related information relative to the four research questions (survey available from first author). Items were focused on how states funded SWPBIS, including their sources and processes, and key informants were given opportunities to describe recommended best practices gleaned from their experiences. Prior to distribution, a draft of the survey was sent to two individuals with extensive SWPBIS knowledge, and their results and feedback were used to refine and clarify questions and instructions for the final version.
The final survey consisted of three sections: (a) identification of all sources of funding used in each state to support implementation of SWPBIS from 2003 to 2012 to the best of the respondent’s knowledge, (b) a series of questions about the process of funding SWPBIS, and (c) two questions assessing the influence of eight variables hypothesized to influence funding decisions. The first section provided a table with 23 possible funding sources listed (e.g., U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services—Office of Special Education Programs, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [OSERS-OSEP, IDEA] funding, Title I, Title IV, etc.) and space for respondents to write in responses. The second section asked respondents the following questions:
Please summarize how the initial decision to start implementation of SWPBIS was made.
As your state moved to scale-up, SWPBIS decisions were made to fund implementation at an expanded level. Describe the decision-making process to increase funding for expanded SWPBIS implementation.
To assist others looking to replicate your success, please provide your recommendations and guidance on how to identify sources of funding, how to match the level of funding needed to implement SWPBIS with the opportunity for substantive impact, and how to sustain SWPBIS funding.
What local, state, or federal policies have made funding SWPBIS more likely or less likely.
To what extent has research or evaluation data influenced funding of SWPBIS implementation?
The last section asked respondents to rank the influence of (a) need defined by local school personnel, (b) hearing presentation on SWPBIS, (c) research results, (d) state policy, (e) federal policy, (f) recommendation from colleague(s), (g) dissatisfaction with existing outcome data, and (h) experiences from other states from none to significant impact in regard to the decision to fund initial implementation and the decision to expand funding for SWPBIS.
Follow-up interviews
After all surveys were completed by state informants and collected and coded by the research team, a follow-up telephone interview was conducted with each informant to (a) develop a more complete description of SWPBIS funding and (b) conduct a reliability and validity check of general themes captured from the initial survey. Individuals with extensive knowledge of SWPBIS implementation conducted the follow-up interviews (first, second, and sixth authors) and were able to garner more refined responses to each of the questions posed in the survey.
Informant protections
Informants were provided informed consent forms describing their rights and protections. In addition, the codirectors reiterated that the purpose of the study was identification of best practice and not specification of dollar amounts. If at any point during the follow-up interview-sensitive or confidential information was being discussed, the interviewer was given specific instructions to stop the interview, reexplain that the research purpose of the interview, and indicate that this information would be stricken from the interview record. A priority goal was to maintain and protect informant credibility, interest, and privacy. No interview sessions were stopped because of discussions about sensitive or confidential information.
Data Analysis
All descriptive data and Likert-type scale responses were assessed using descriptive statistics. Following the recommendation of Jamieson (2004), the median was used as the measure of central tendency for Likert items because of their ordinal scaling. We used a six-step thematic analysis approach with all qualitative data (i.e., responses to open-ended items and interview questions). Thematic analysis is a search for themes that emerge as important to the description of the phenomenon and is a form of pattern recognition within the data, where emerging themes become the categories for analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). The analysis was conducted as follows:
All surveys and follow-up interviews were read and examined for general themes by a single coder.
Once general themes were identified, a second independent coder used the general themes to recode the surveys.
Both coders met with a third member of the research team and assigned final codes.
Each disagreement was discussed until all three individuals achieved consensus.
General themes were related to results from the survey.
Each major theme was reported to one informant for verification of alignment and accuracy.
This approach is consistent with other qualitative data analysis procedures in special education research (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005) and was used to ensure reliability and credibility of findings.
Results
Findings are reported by general themes; however, specific information relative to each state also is included to exemplify themes. As described above, any information that was deemed by the research team to be too specific, sensitive, or confidential were not disaggregated by state.
Funding Streams
Informants from all nine states indicated the OSERS-OSEP, IDEA was a primary funding source for SWPBIS implementation (see Figure 1). The Florida informant reported IDEA funds as the single state-level source of funding; however, in the follow-up interview, local funding (e.g., SWPBIS coaches/coordinators salaries) also was reported as important in supporting SWPBIS scale-up. The Oregon informant reported a recent shift from OSERS-OSEP funding for SWPBIS implementation to Safe and Drug Free Schools (Title IV) and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds. Overall, OSERS-OSEP IDEA funds were reported consistently as the main funding source across all states, followed by State Improvement Grants (SIG) and State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG), both of which are also OSERS-OSEP funded (four states), Title IV funds, ARRA, federal grants, and other sources within state budgets.
Sources of state funding for scaling-up the implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Informants from four states reported “other” nontraditional types of funding for SWPBIS implementation. In Oregon, funds from a regional conference since 2003 and from recent donations have been used to continue support for statewide implementation. In Illinois, statewide implementation has been supported by funding from the Illinois Children’s Mental Health Partnership, funded in part by the state Governor’s office. However, that source of funding was temporary and has since ended. The Maryland informant reported reliance on state general funds (unspecified) and dropout prevention and HIV prevention funding (2003-2006). In Colorado, a number of nontraditional sources were reported, including Expelled and At-Risk Student Services state grants, and, recently, the Colorado Legacy Foundation and the Colorado School Safety Resources Center in the Department of Public Safety.
Process for Initiating SWPBIS Implementation Funding
Although each state’s process was unique, informants from five of the nine states (Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Colorado, and Missouri) reported that their initial implementation was supported primarily by special education funding. In Florida, implementation was initiated by the Florida Positive Behavior Support Project, which worked with the Florida Department of Education. In Oregon, initial “grassroots” funding support was reported to have originated from LEA implementation, and later funding support came from the SEA, working in tandem with faculty in the Department of Special Education at the University of Oregon. Maryland’s implementation was reportedly initiated with funding from the Superintendent of Special Education for a pilot implementation in collaboration with Sheppard Pratt Health System. This effort led to the development of a statewide training model and specific SWPBIS policy. In Minnesota, a stakeholder group, which included the Assistant Commissioner of Education, worked with Dr. George Sugai (name provided by the informant) to initiate implementation and funding for SWPBIS.
With respect to the criteria and information used by each state to inform their decision to begin SWPBIS funding at the state level, informants from all but one state (Michigan) described the use of existing data from direct contact with or assistance from the University of Oregon generally or Drs. Rob Horner, George Sugai, or Tim Lewis, specifically. Informants from all states indicated that attendance at national conferences and data from the research literature or exemplar states (e.g., Maryland mentioned Illinois, Minnesota mentioned Illinois and Maryland) influenced funding initiation. In Figure 2, the results from a 4-point Likert-type scale are summarized based on the relative contribution of different funding sources on decisions to initiate funding for SWPBIS. Similar to the descriptive responses, most state informants rated research and conference presentations related to decreases in discipline problems as having a significant impact on decisions to initiate funding for SWPBIS implementation. SWPBIS implementation and funding was reported as being significantly influenced by local school personnel who expressed a need and assistance for behavioral support. Few state informants reported any influence from state policy, and no state informant reported federal policy as a factor in initiating funding for SWPBIS.
Sources contributing to decision making at the state level to fund initial implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (median responses).
Process for Scaling-Up SWPBIS Implementation Funding
We defined scaling-up as implementation of SWPBIS in at least 30% to 40% of all schools within a state and asked each informant the process for increasing and sustaining funding as their state scaled-up SWPBIS implementation. Similar to initiation, funding decision making relative to supporting scale-up was reported most often as originating in state departments of special education. In Maryland, the decision was reported as originating within the department of education generally. The Oregon informant reported that scale-up had been funded entirely by the Northwest Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Network and that the state department has not expanded funding for scale-up. Informants from a number of states mentioned that a single individual, typically within each state’s department of special education, pushed for scale-up funding.
We were also interested in the data and criteria used by each state to support funding for SWPBIS scale-up. Informants from most states mentioned the use of (a) at least one measure of SWPBIS fidelity of implementation, including the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001) and/or the Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ; Cohen, Kincaid, & Childs, 2007), (b) in- and out-of school suspensions (ISS and OSS), and (c) office discipline referrals (ODRs). Informants from four states specifically mentioned data from behavior data systems, including School-Wide Information System (SWIS; www.swis.org) and PBIS Assessment (www.pbisassessment.org). In support of scale-up funding, Colorado and Missouri informants mentioned direct feedback from local school districts, and the Maryland informant indicated demand for SWPBIS at the school level. Informants from Minnesota and Colorado reported geographic representation as a key data source for scaling-up. The Colorado informant reported solicitation of parent feedback, and informants from Michigan, Missouri, and North Carolina reported using academic achievement data for supporting scale-up funding efforts. Most state informants reported decreases in behavior problems and increases in fidelity as criteria for expanding funding. The Florida informant provided a specific measurable indicator, that is, schools implementing with high fidelity showing 40% or more reductions in ISS, OSS, and ODRs.
Informants were asked to rate sources that contributed to scaling-up SWPBIS implementation (see Figure 3). Again, input from local school districts, research results, and conference presentations were rated as significant factors affecting decision making. Unlike initial implementation, state-level outcome data were reported as being a significant scaling-up factor, suggesting that outcomes were more important for sustaining and increasing funding for scaling than during the initial push for SWPBIS implementation. Similar to the initial funding results, state and federal policy were rated as having little or no impact on funding decisions at the state level.
Sources contributing to decision making at the state level to expanding funding for the implementation of SWPBIS (median responses).
Recommendations From Exemplar States
Each state informant was asked to provide recommendations and guidance for other states relative to three specific aspects of state-level funding for SWPBIS implementation: (a) how to determine the level of funding needed to implement SWPBIS, (b) how to identify sources of funding, and (c) how to sustain funding. Specific recommendations were abbreviated and are provided in Table 2. Across all states, two recommendations appeared consistent: (a) diversify funding and (b) use data to demonstrate effectiveness. The informant from North Carolina clearly articulated the role data played in going to scale and maintaining state funding:
Data presented in annual evaluation reports built and maintained increasingly widespread interest in PBIS, kept schools, and LEAs implementing, allowed us to identify ways to improve implementation, and leveraged initial and ongoing support from decision makers. Without data documenting stages of implementation and their effects, I don’t think PBIS would have ever gotten off the ground in our state.
Recommendations for Funding SWPBIS at the State Level.
Note. SWPBIS = School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; LEAs = local education agencies.
The Florida informant’s recommendation suggested a balanced approach with respect to funding, sustainability, and building local capacity:
We found that the more we initially supported districts for engaging with us in PBIS, the worst our outcomes were. We seeded districts initially (funds) and had some success, but when we withdrew funding for training, then for data collection, then for special projects, etc. we heard each time, “We can’t do this anymore.” Yet the number of schools continues to grow and the fidelity is still high. In reflection, we realized that reliance on our funding may have inhibited the system change that needed to occur at the district that is required to sustain the SWPBS system support.
Follow-Up Interviews
Based on our review and analysis of the survey, four follow-up questions were developed. First, each informant was asked whether their state had a specific policy that included social behavior generally or SWPBIS specifically. Four informants (Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, and Missouri) reported having a specific policy, while the others indicated that policies were currently being developed or that social behavior was mentioned across multiple policies without a specific focus within a policy. For the four states with policies, Maryland was not funded, Missouri used IDEA funds, Michigan used IDEA and a grant from the Office of Special Education, and Illinois was funded through a mental health partnership, which has since been eliminated.
Second, each informant was asked what role state and federal policy had on scale-up efforts. In states with distinct policies, informants indicated that policy was influential; however, overwhelmingly, all states cited IDEA as the primary policy supporting implementation and funding of SWPBIS implementation. The Colorado informant also mentioned new bully prevention laws at the national and state levels as helping to increase awareness of SWPBIS at the level of local school districts.
Third, to understand the relationship between SWPBIS and other related initiatives, each informant was asked about the influence of Response to Intervention (RtI) efforts, and other multitiered systems of support. Although no specific or leading prompt was provided, most informants reported that the relationship was either collaborative and integrated or parallel. Informants from five of the nine states indicated that RtI and SWPBIS efforts have been implemented parallel with each other, while informants from the other four states indicated that the academic RtI and SWPBIS have been either integrated systems for a number of years or implementation collaboration efforts. One informant indicated that RtI and SWPBIS had been parallel; however, RtI and SWPBIS became more collaborative and integrated efforts when data indicated that schools implementing SWPBIS with fidelity also experienced achievement gains.
The last follow-up question examined whether primary implementation and scale-up funding was through local or state sources. Five of the nine state informants indicated that funding was from approximately 10% to 20% state dollars and 80% to 90% local dollars. One informant reported that funding percentages were variable across school districts and that no clear pattern was available. Two state informants reported that funding was evenly distributed (50/50) between local districts and the state. One state informant reported that 100% of funding for SWPBIS implementation and scale-up was from local school districts.
General Themes and Validity Check
Overall, we identified four salient themes across all surveys. First, funding for initial and scale-up of SWPBIS efforts relied heavily, and continue to do so to some degree, on special education funding, particularly IDEA funds. Second, for most of the exemplar states, decision making for scaling-up SWPBIS implementation originated in special education (e.g., special education office within the state department of education). Third, to effectively scale-up SWPBIS implementation, funding sources should be diversified, and data should be used to demonstrate effectiveness. Finally, although the decision to scale SWPBIS implementation preceded state-level policy, implementation was or currently is supported by the eventual development of state policy.
A follow-up alignment reliability and validity check was conducted by asking each informant to review the four general themes. Their responses are summarized in Table 3. All state informants, except Maryland, agreed that funding SWPBIS relies primarily on special education dollars. The Maryland informant reported that IDEA funds are used, but are not the primary source of funding. Six (Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon) of the nine state informants reported full alignment with decision making originating in special education. Maryland’s policy and funding process has been through general education and not special education. Illinois and Minnesota informants reported partial alignment because decision making for scaling and funding SWPBIS was collaborative within the department of education and included outside agencies. All state informants, except Florida, reported full alignment with recommendations to diversify funding and use data to demonstrate effectiveness. The Florida informant agreed that data should be used, but only partially agreed with diversifying funding. Six (Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon) of the nine state informants fully aligned with the last general theme.
General Theme Validity Alignment Check.
Note. Full = full alignment with the theme, Partial = partial alignment with the theme, and No = no alignment with the theme. FL = Florida, CO = Colorado, IL = Illinois, MD = Maryland, MI = Michigan, MN = Minnesota, MO = Missouri, NC = North Carolina, and OR = Oregon; SWPBIS = School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Discussion
The sources of, and processes for, funding educational practices between LEAs, SEAs, and the U.S. Department of Education are complex and contextually specific. The purpose of this study was to identify general themes in funding processes and sources reported by SWPBIS informants in exemplar states currently scaling-up implementation of SWPBIS. We identified nine exemplar states and surveyed and interviewed at least one highly knowledgeable informant within each state about the processes and sources used for initial implementation and scale-up of SWPBIS. Overall, we gleaned four general themes, which were generally supported by each state.
First, most states rely primarily on special education funding for SWPBIS implementation, suggesting that SWPBIS is a special education initiative. However, the focus of SWPBIS is on all students, including students with IEPs. SWPBIS is not designed specifically to solely address the needs of students receiving special education services. Intuitively, SWPBIS is a systemic process to support the behavioral needs of all students, yet results from our sample states suggest that special education dollars represent an important source of funding for scaled implementation of the framework. It should be noted that research supports the positive impact SWPBIS has on students with IEPs. For example, in Missouri, students on IEPs in schools implementing the full continuum of SWPBIS experience greater academic gains and spend greater amounts of time in general education classroom compared with students on IEPs in schools not implementing SWPBIS (Missouri Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support, 2012). Likewise, the emphasis on early intervention and prevention of challenging behavior as well as building school environments to increase the likelihood of social behavior success among students with disabilities are all in line with the spirit and intent of IDEA.
Second, the decision to implement and scale SWPBIS originated in special education. This finding is not surprising given that most of the funding for SWPBIS implementation is from special education. However, as noted, SWPBIS is a school-wide model for all students. SWPBIS works across general and special education personnel to implement evidence-based practices that are appropriate for special education student, as well as general education, and therefore in line with IDEA funding purpose. It is important to note that although funding and initial scaling decisions originated in special education, state informants did not describe SWPBIS as a special education initiative and stressed their collaborative relationships with general education teams. The Minnesota informant, for example, suggested that funding through special education may be easier because “one home for general education” does not exist, and general education funding comes from many discrete but not always well-defined sources. In addition, specific grant funds tended to come from special education sources rather than general education for the simple reason that very little nonspecified general education grant opportunities for SEAs exist.
Third, diversified funding and use of data demonstrating effectiveness implementation are recommended to initiate, scale-up, and sustain SWPBIS implementation. Interestingly, informants from these nine exemplar states relied primarily on a single source of funding, which might suggest that justification for diversified funding may be difficult without implementation examples and outcome data. In addition, departmentalized and initiative-driven efforts may present structural and operational challenges that impede collaborative and integrated funding possibilities.
Finally, initial SWPBIS implementation was not supported by a specific state policy, but scaling-up efforts were eventually supported by new or revised state policies due to the initial positive outcomes. In general, the scale-up effort influenced state policy development, and in some cases, the SWPBIS state leadership team was actively involved in pushing for and drafting state legislation to support scaled implementation. Data from state scale-up efforts were reported as being critically important for the development of SWPBIS friendly policy at the state level. In addition, the inclusion of SWPBIS in state policy tended to come under a variety of topic areas, such as, reducing suspensions and expulsions or bully behavior, rather than in one policy related directly to scaling SWPBIS. This of course is appropriate given that SWPBIS is a problem solving framework designed to address local challenges, such as those mentioned above, allowing potential greater flexibility for SWPBIS funding as new issues arise versus anchoring to a single initiative.
In sum, the adoption and sustained use of any system-level initiative is potentially affected by the amount, quality, and diversification of funding supports. In this examination of SWPBIS implementation and funding in nine states, we learned that implementation is not only linked to funding, but to a range of factors: (a) leadership coordination and collaboration, (b) general and special education integration, (c) procedural ease, (d) collection and use of data, (e) political support, (f) attention to implementation phase or stage and readiness of districts and schools to move to a next phase, (g) local implementation expertise, and (h) priority. The relative contribution of each of these factors becomes an important focus for future research and policy analysis.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Opinions expressed herein are the authors’ and do not reflect necessarily the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and such endorsements should not be inferred.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The development of this article was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education (H029D40055), and a grant from the Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (R324B080007).