Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in Secure Care Juvenile Justice Settings: Feasibility and Sustainability

Abstract

The success of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in typical schools has led to interest in applying PBIS in alternative settings, including secure care programs for incarcerated juveniles. PBIS holds promise for positively impacting youth behavior in this context. In this discussion article, we describe unique characteristics of secure care and strategies to enhance PBIS implementation and sustainability.

Keywords

positive behavioral supports juvenile delinquency programs residential alternative school/classroom

Programming philosophies and practices for juvenile offenders historically have been cyclical and reactive to societal and cultural trends. From the creation of the juvenile court in the late 1800s until the 1960s, treatment of juvenile offenders was grounded in a therapeutic, rehabilitative approach (National Research Council, 2013). Starting in the 1960s through the end of the 20th century, treatment philosophy became increasingly more punitive and restrictive. However, the early 21st century brought another philosophical and policy shift focused on reducing reliance on incarceration and making conditions of incarceration more supportive of adolescent developmental, social, and emotional needs through research-based programs (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, & Chapman, 2010). Despite policy changing toward deterrence and postarrest alternatives to detention, tens of thousands of children and adolescents are committed to secure care detention facilities at any given time (Youth.gov, n.d.). The 2016 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s facility census reported that 45,567 juvenile offenders were confined in 1,772 residential detention facilities in the United States (Hockenberry & Sladky, 2018).

Typically, youth who are incarcerated in secure care facilities have committed serious offenses such as crimes against persons or property. Secure care detention facilities are residential facilities where youth are placed for varying lengths of time, ranging from a few weeks to over a year, and that employ staff across multiple disciplines, including security, treatment, education, medical services, and vocational education. Secure care includes an array of programs designed to meet the needs of at-risk youth with respect to mental health treatment, rehabilitation, health and physical welfare, and education and career training, all within overarching goals of ensuring safety and security for youth and staff and ensuring youth are held accountable for their crimes. These diverse areas of programming mean that staff in secure care represent a richly multidisciplinary group of professionals who are dedicated to the safety and welfare of the youth in their care, but who also present a range of experiences, education and training, and even philosophies and treatment priorities.

Secure care programs usually fall under the jurisdiction of state and/or county juvenile justice systems. Because secure care programs serve school-age youth, all juvenile justice programs must include education programs, which are usually administered by state or local education agencies, operate much the same as any traditional school, and are subject to the same education laws as traditional schools. Youth attend classes during school hours and earn credits toward graduation, and special education services are available to youth with disabilities. Some youth earn a diploma while others may complete a high school equivalency certificate such as a general education development diploma (GED). School programs are usually housed within the secure care facility, which often means that educators who work in those schools must work closely with the juvenile justice staff who supervise youth and oversee programming during nonschool hours. Correctional staff who directly supervise youth throughout the day may be present in the school and even in classrooms. Case managers and treatment providers may consult with teachers regarding youth progress in school.

In 2014, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice issued a joint report that described five guiding principles for high-quality education in secure care juvenile justice programs and recommended core activities that reflect each principle. The first principle is the importance of a positive facility-wide climate that prioritizes education and provides services to address youth individual needs. The remaining principles address ensuring necessary funding to support educational opportunities; recruiting and retaining qualified education staff; providing rigorous and relevant curricula that are aligned with state academic, career, and technical education standards; and establishing processes to ensure coordination of efforts across agencies, including reentry into home communities.

This discussion article focuses on strategies for addressing the first principle—positive facility-wide climate—in a sustainable manner. A critical core activity supporting effective implementation of this principle is establishment of a multitiered system (MTSS) of academic and behavioral supports. Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a widely used framework of differentiated behavior supports that is consistent with goals and practices of MTSS (Sandomierski, Kincaid, & Algozzine, 2007). PBIS addresses the behavioral supports component of an MTSS model through a graduated system of interventions and supports that relies on differentiated goals and practices to meet the needs of all youth within a system (Sugai & Horner, 2006).

Typically, the PBIS framework includes three levels of support. The first is the universal or Tier 1 level. This is the systems level, in which the focus is on preventive practices that are implemented for all youth throughout a school or facility. Tier 1 includes components such as agreed-upon expectations for all areas and activities, clear procedures for repeated teaching of those expectations, strategies for acknowledging youth for meeting expectations, and consistent responses for rule infractions that reflect the severity of the infraction. The second level provides targeted (Tier 2) supports. Also called secondary-level supports, Tier 2 emphasizes early identification of youth who need additional support to be successful. The goal of Tier 2 is to catch behavior problems quickly, before they develop into chronic problems that become more difficult to manage and cause greater disruption to a youth’s social, developmental, and educational trajectory. Tier 2 supports are designed to provide more frequent prompts and acknowledgment for correct behavior, and perhaps to provide more intensive instruction in prosocial skills (Conley, Kittelman, Massar, & McIntosh, 2018).

For example, many facilities use Check-in/Check-Out (CICO; Crone, Hawken, & Horner, 2010) to provide additional reminders and feedback for youth for whom universal supports are insufficient. At one state-level juvenile detention facility, the school PBIS coach implements CICO with youth who are receiving Tier 2 supports. The coach briefly reviews the facility-wide expectations, and the coach and youth set a daily goal. During the day, teachers give feedback to these youth at the end of each class using a CICO point form, which each youth carries to classes. At the end of the school day, the coach meets with each youth to debrief and count points earned during the day. Each youth who meets his daily goal earns a sticker on his CICO calendar, a “blue ticket” to be used in the Tier 1 reward system, and a small treat.

The third level is known as the tertiary (Tier 3) level. This is the level that is dedicated for youth who, despite adequate exposure to support at Tiers 1 and 2, continue to exhibit behavioral challenges that require individualized assessment and intensive, ongoing interventions. Tier 3 interventions may involve multidisciplinary planning and wraparound services to address the complex, multidimensional nature of the chronic and severe challenging behavior. For example, in the facility mentioned above, when a youth is referred for Tier 3 interventions, the PBIS coach gathers functional behavior assessment data through interviews with teachers, correctional staff, and the youth as well as observations in classes and residential areas. Those data are reviewed by the PBIS team that includes educators and correctional staff. The team develops hypotheses about possible functions of the challenging behavior and develops intervention plans to prosocially address those functions.

Feasibility and Sustainability of PBIS in Secure Care

The documented successes of PBIS in traditional schools (e.g., Simonsen et al., 2012) have sparked interest in applying this framework to alternative schools, including schools in secure care programs. Multiple juvenile justice programs in statewide and local jurisdictions throughout the country are implementing PBIS, include statewide PBIS initiatives that have been in place in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona secure care programs for almost 10 years. These programs and others have reported positive results from PBIS on measures of academic outcomes, major and minor behavior infractions, disciplinary actions, and facility climate (Alonzo-Vaughn, Bradley, & Cassavaugh, 2015; Fernandez, McCain, Brown Williams, & Ellison, 2015; Johnson et al., 2013; Lopez, Williams, & Newsom, 2015; Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2012). For example, Alonzo-Vaughn and colleagues (2015) detailed how tertiary and targeted supports led to overall behavioral improvement for three youth in secure care. Areas of improvement included increases in the number of positive acknowledgements earned, reductions in major and minor rule violations, faster progression through treatment levels, and reductions in disciplinary segregations. Furthermore, staff reported positive anecdotal observations, such as improvements in attitudes of each youth, and the fact that each youth became more goal-oriented about reuniting with their families and returning to their regular schools (Alonzo-Vaughn et al., 2015).

While there are standard components that should be implemented as part of universal-level PBIS, each secure care school or facility can customize those components to match local needs and preferences (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2015). Components of PBIS include systems (e.g., infrastructure to support and enhance implementation) and practices (e.g., specific elements of each tier). Tier 1 systems include establishing a representative leadership team to plan or guide all aspects of PBIS and using relevant data to determine need and monitor effects of PBIS practices. Tier 1 practices consist of developing a few broadly-stated expectations, defining each expectation in the form of rules for all areas of the school or facility, developing specific plans for continuous teaching of rules, designing systems for acknowledging youth for rule-following behavior and staff for implementing PBIS correctly, and establishing agreed-upon definitions of major and minor misbehavior and consequences for those misbehaviors.

The goal with any successful, effective initiative is to sustain the practices over time. Han and Weiss (2005) define sustainability as “ . . . continued implementation of an intervention or prevention program, with ongoing implementation fidelity to the core program principles, after supplemental resources used to support initial training and implementation are withdrawn” (p. 666). Research generated by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) has identified specific practices that can enhance sustainability of PBIS, including steps that should be taken during both planning and implementation stages. Sustained implementation is most likely to occur when these “enablers” are systematically addressed during planning and implementation rather than left to chance. In the following section, we discuss application of these and other practices that are recommended for enhancing implementation and sustainability of PBIS in secure care.

Recommendations for Enhancing PBIS in Secure Care

The universal components of PBIS in secure care are the same as for traditional schools, but the residential, multidisciplinary nature of secure care facilities provides both unique opportunities and potential challenges in PBIS design and implementation. One example of unique opportunities is the potential for designing consistent behavioral expectations, instruction, and responses across school and nonschool settings. A second example is the opportunity to incorporate multidisciplinary services—such as treatment programs, cognitive therapy, and medical services—across all tiers of support. One potential challenge lies in training staff who have a wide range of education and experiences and who typically have little training in the behavioral principles and practices that are the foundation of PBIS. Another common challenge is that secure care data systems are designed more for accountability goals and less likely to be used formatively to guide program improvement (Scheuermann, Nelson, Wang, & Bruntmyer, 2015). Available data are typically not in easily retrievable, user-friendly formats that focus on disaggregated variables of interest to PBIS teams. For example, the number of youth assigned to a facility changes frequently as new youth arrive and current youth complete their assigned detention and are sent home or to other programs. Census variations may not be automatically captured in discipline data, which may skew those data.

Following are recommendations for specific steps to be taken during exploration, initial planning, or implementation that are important to enhancing fidelity of PBIS implementation and sustainability of PBIS in secure care. These recommendations are based on NIRN research, descriptive reports of PBIS implementation in multiple juvenile justice jurisdictions (e.g., Alonzo-Vaughn et al., 2015; Fernandez et al., 2015; Lopez et al., 2015), PBIS implementation research, and our own experiences leading and supporting PBIS in secure care. In the next sections, we explain the importance of each recommendation and provide examples from secure care programs that are implementing PBIS. In addition, in Table 1, we provide guiding questions to help facility administrators and PBIS teams address each recommendation.

Table 1.

Questions to Guide PBIS Planning and Implementation.

Practice	Questions to guide planning
Consider whether PBIS will be implemented facility-wide or in a single program	• Have administers and staff throughout the facility expressed concerns about either discipline in general, or concerns about certain problem behaviors?
	• Is there currently cross-program collaborative planning and information sharing regarding program implementation?
	• Do staff from various programs typically work together to address shared problems?
Build staff buy-in	• Based on your knowledge of staff, what do you predict their response will be to PBIS? Will they view it as just another “program” being adopted? or Will they embrace it as meeting identified needs for more effective behavior programming?
	• What are the components of PBIS that may create the greatest concern or confusion?
	• Are staff generally aware of their facility’s discipline data (e.g., discipline infractions and responses), and trends in those data over time, location, or other variables?
Build administrative support and leadership	• What indicators suggest administrative support for PBIS?
	• Do administrators at all levels communicate support for PBIS?
	• Are resources made available by administration to support PBIS activities?
	What specific administrator activities would communicate strong support and leadership for PBIS?
Ensure that the PBIS team is representative of disciplines and stakeholders in the facility	• What disciplines and programs should be represented on the leadership team?
	• What are potential obstacles to developing a multi-disciplinary leadership team, and having this team meet regularly over time?
	• How will youth voice be represented?
Use relevant data for planning and monitoring	• What data are the best indicators of levels of minor misbehavior in the facility?
	• What data are the best indicators of major misbehaviors?
	• How are those data obtained?
	• Are those data disaggregated across variables that are relevant to PBIS?
	• Are data easily available in graphic representation?
	• What steps need to be taken to ensure access to relevant data in usable formats?
Ensure infrastructure to support and sustain PBIS	• Who should be trained in PBIS?
	• What are the differential training needs across staff roles and responsibilities?
	• Who will be responsible for leading and coordinating PBIS activities in the facility? How much time will be needed for this person to effectively perform this role? Will this person need to be relieved of other duties to carry out PBIS responsibilities?
	• What budget will be needed to implement PBIS activities?
	• Who will provide both initial and ongoing training and technical assistance?
	• How will new staff and administrators be trained in PBIS after implementation has begun?
	• What training and coaching will be needed to improve, extend, and expand PBIS over time?
Choose practices that are a contextual match	• What are core philosophical beliefs of administrators and staff regarding the role of secure care for the youth in their custody?
	• In general, what is the nature of staff interactions with youth? Are those interactions more positive and instructional, or reactive and negative?
	• What features of PBIS are a close match with current philosophies and practices?
	• What features of PBIS may be met with resistance due to perceived incongruity with current practices?
Plan for continuous regeneration	• How will new initiatives be integrated and aligned with PBIS?
	• Who will lead efforts to integrate and align new initiatives with PBIS?
	• How will the foundational principles of PBIS be protected when new initiatives are introduced?

Note. PBIS = positive behavioral interventions and supports.

Consider Whether PBIS Will Be Implemented Facility-Wide or in a Single Program

Secure care facilities that are considering adopting PBIS must decide whether PBIS will be implemented facility-wide, in all programs, or if not, which programs within the facility will be involved. The fact that youth live at the facility offers opportunities for facility-wide implementation, in all school and residential programs, which could offer greater consistency in adult expectations for and responses to youth behavior across programs. The questions posed in Table 1 will help guide this decision. For example, facility-wide implementation may be the logical choice if administrators and staff facility-wide share common discipline concerns and staff across programs typically work together to problem-solve or plan for program improvement.

Some secure care programs implement PBIS throughout the facility, while others implement in the school programs only. In our experience, education staff are often the first to learn about PBIS from professional development activities with colleagues in typical schools. While we encourage facility-wide implementation, if administrators and staff on the residential side of the facility are not yet motivated to pursue PBIS, we advise that the education program proceed with planning and implementation. Facility colleagues can be involved by including facility representatives on the PBIS leadership team, sharing impact data with facility administrators, and offering suggestions for how elements of PBIS can be used to address problems in dorms and other areas. For example, 2009 Texas legislation required PBIS be implemented in the school programs of each state-level secure care juvenile facility. By 2012, positive outcomes from the first few years of implementation led to PBIS being adopted as the behavior management model for state-level facilities.

To date, we have no empirical data to suggest one approach is better in terms of youth outcomes. But if feasible, at this point we encourage facility-wide implementation, or establishing a goal of facility-wide implementation if that is not possible at the onset. Facility-wide implementation creates opportunities for education staff to work in close partnership with residential staff and reflects the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (2014) principle of a positive facility-wide climate.

Build Staff Buy-In

Buy-in refers to the commitment of staff to the effort of PBIS implementation. Answers to buy-in questions from Table 1 can help PBIS leaders anticipate how staff will respond to PBIS. Relevant information that considers staff responses to previous new initiatives, levels of concern about PBIS practices, and/or staff awareness of discipline data may impact levels of staff buy-in. Research in typical schools suggests that PBIS implementation is more likely to be successful and sustained over time if at least 80% of staff acknowledge the need for PBIS and express support (Coffey & Horner, 2012). Jolivette and Nelson (2010) recommend establishing buy-in from 90% or more of staff in secure care facilities due to multiple shifts, roles, responsibilities, varying experiences and philosophical orientations, and high staff turnover. Scheuermann and colleagues (2013) surveyed PBIS team members in secure care facilities, internal PBIS coaches from those facilities, and external PBIS coaches who provided support to the teams. The purpose of the survey was to identify facilitators of and barriers to PBIS implementation. All three groups identified lack of staff buy-in as a primary barrier to successful implementation.

It is particularly critical to establish staff buy-in in secure care facilities because of potentially broader diversity in staff philosophies about the purpose and goal of juvenile secure care. Historically, secure care juvenile justice programs have operated from a punishment orientation, with a primary goal of holding youth accountable for crimes committed. While the present trend is away from a strong punishment orientation, that basic philosophy appears to still be present in many secure care facilities (Kimball, Jolivette, & Sprague, 2017), perhaps because decision-makers are not sufficiently aware of effective alternative programming options (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2015). If a strong punishment mind-set is present among secure care administrators and staff, PBIS may potentially be perceived as contrary to the purposes and goals of the facility. In this case, more effort may be needed during the earliest stages of development to cultivate both a better understanding of PBIS and appreciation of the contextual fit between PBIS and current practices and needs. Building buy-in during this stage may mean that administrators and staff need information about the basic components of PBIS, examples of PBIS components in secure care facilities in other jurisdictions, and practical implementation matters (roles and responsibilities, timelines, implications for changes in current practices, etc.). Sharing data about how many major and minor misbehaviors are occurring, and patterns of those misbehaviors (e.g., location, time of day, nature of the misbehaviors) may help highlight the need for a new approach to behavior management programming. It also may help build buy-in by sharing data that highlight the impact of disciplinary consequences on the youth population, such as how behavior incidents affect youth academic progress, decisions related to youth progress in treatment programs, and release decisions. Activities to raise awareness may also need to address common misperceptions about PBIS, such as a belief that PBIS means that there will be no consequences for rule violations.

In our experience, it is very important to take the time to educate staff about the need for PBIS and what effective implementation of PBIS practices can mean for staff and youth. The more staff who agree with the need for PBIS, the more likely PBIS practices are to be implemented correctly and maintained over time.

Build Administrative Support and Leadership

One of the elements most important to buy-in and successful implementation, and thus a prerequisite to sustained implementation, is visible, strong administrative support and leadership for PBIS (Coffey & Horner, 2012). Administrator support is critical for traditional schools (e.g., Mathews, McIntosh, Frank, & May, 2014) and secure care facilities (Scheuermann et al., 2013). Administrators set the tone and expectations for their campus or facility. Staff are more likely to do their part in implementing PBIS when administrators communicate the need for PBIS, the belief that PBIS can help reduce campus discipline problems, and the expectation that all staff members do their part in its implementation. As indicated in the questions for assessing administrator support in Table 1, indicators of administrator support for PBIS can vary. PBIS teams may need to consider what specific leadership and support behaviors will be most critical in their facility. Administrators in secure care facilities can demonstrate leadership and support for PBIS by providing resources (e.g., funds, time for the PBIS team to give updates during staff meetings, time for the campus team leader to carry out PBIS responsibilities, access to data), attending PBIS team meetings, publicly acknowledging the efforts of the PBIS team, and communicating expectations regarding PBIS. For example, school administrators will probably expect all teachers to establish classroom expectations that reflect schoolwide expectations, teach expectations, and have in-class consequences for correct and incorrect behaviors. Administrators in the residential areas might communicate expectations for correctional staff to engage in proactive strategies such as precorrection (reviewing expectations before an activity) and increased attention to rule-following behaviors. Those administrators might also ensure that correctional staff are provided with sufficient training and coaching to acquire the skills necessary to implement those practices. One final benefit of administrative support is that in facilities where PBIS is being implemented in a single program, such as education, the administrator of that program publicly championing the benefits of PBIS might create interest in PBIS among facility administrators, potentially leading to expansion of PBIS throughout a facility.

Ensure That PBIS Team Is Representative of Facility Disciplines and Stakeholders

Table 1 includes questions to help guide the formation of PBIS teams that are sufficiently representative and can be sustained over time. Staff representing disciplines in secure care programs are not normally present in traditional schools, such as correctional officers, case managers, living unit supervisors, and mental health treatment staff. We encourage including representatives from those and other key disciplines as active members of the PBIS leadership team for several reasons. First, including representatives of programs throughout the facility may increase awareness and understanding of PBIS, and may lead to interest in expanding PBIS to other programs in the facility (if PBIS is being implemented in a single program only). Also, it is common for there to be different incentive systems in various programs within a facility. For example, treatment programs may have incentives for youth who successfully complete various stages of treatment. The school program may have incentives for youth based on school attendance or academic performance. Dorm staff may provide incentives for youth who meet certain expectations regarding behavior during nonschool hours. The PBIS team needs to be aware of all of the incentive programs being used, the contingencies for accessing those programs, and persons responsible for each program’s implementation and oversight. This information will aid the team in designing acknowledgment systems that are to be part of PBIS.

The team can also consider how PBIS practices will be aligned and integrated with other initiatives. For example, if a facility has adopted restorative justice practices, the leadership team can align and differentiate the foundational principles and practices of PBIS and restorative justice, and clearly communicate to all staff how to implement each approach while staying true to the core elements of each.

Finally, the leadership team can plan methods for ensuring that youth have input into the design of PBIS activities. Jolivette, Boden, Sprague, Ennis, and Kimball (2015) describe the need for and benefits of ensuring that youth have a voice in PBIS. Based on data collected through multiple focus groups of staff and youth in secure care facilities that were implementing PBIS, the researchers concluded that designing methods to solicit youth input may enhance youth response to PBIS and increase overall fidelity of implementation (Jolivette et al., 2015). Youth input may be obtained in numerous ways, such as inviting youth representatives to attend portions of PBIS leadership team meetings to give input on specific PBIS activities, holding youth focus groups to solicit input, and/or using surveys or suggestion boxes so that youth may anonymously provide input. As with all activities, youth can be taught what type of input is sought and how to provide it. Finally, we encourage facilities to consider ways to ensure that all youth voices in the facility are represented, including youth populations whose behavioral data would deem them most and least successful in a given secure care facility context.

Use Relevant Data for Planning and Monitoring

One element that is critical to effective PBIS implementation but that often presents challenges in secure care facilities is the availability of relevant, easily accessible data. Table 1 presents guiding questions for PBIS teams pertinent to identifying and accessing relevant data. Leadership teams need to be able to access data that reflect major and minor discipline infractions and disciplinary actions, disaggregated across variables of interest for planning purposes. These data include where and when the majority of discipline infractions occur and the misbehaviors that account for the most disciplinary actions. These data are evaluated to determine need, such as addressing the question of whether PBIS efforts need to focus on a particular area of the facility or a particular category of misbehavior. These data are also used to monitor the impact of PBIS on those targeted areas of need. Data that are available in visual summaries such as charts or graphs are easiest to review and can be analyzed more accurately.

Traditional schools have the option of using the Schoolwide Information System (SWIS) for a multitude of data needs. Data are entered into SWIS, and then SWIS can generate reports in which data are disaggregated across five variables (frequency, behaviors, location, time, and students) and presented in graphic representations. SWIS is not yet available to school programs in alternative settings. Nor is it common for secure care programs to have data systems with the capacity to generate the specific types of data or presentation formats needed for PBIS (Scheuermann et al., 2015). For this reason, secure care programs may need to develop in-house databases to collect the data that will be used as part of PBIS along with dashboards for organizing and accessing those data easily. Fernandez and colleagues (2015) describe data tools developed by the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice for its secure care programs and used by facility PBIS teams to guide intervention decisions. These data tools produce graphic representations of data to facilitate analyses. The first data tool is a data dashboard, which is an overall summary of severe disciplinary incidents by day and hour. Fernandez et al. (2015) describe how use of the dashboard transformed their PBIS team from being primarily focused on reacting to behavioral incidents to proactively developing supports focused on specific problematic times of day. The second data tool is a “Radar Report,” which provides both behavioral data and narrative comments. The Radar Report tracks youth on each level, including length of time youth have been receiving targeted and tertiary supports. The Radar Report allows the Tier 2 PBIS team to more effectively develop individualized interventions.

While developing in-house PBIS data systems is an additional step that may take time to complete, we advise that the time spent is necessary. Ensuring that PBIS teams and program administrators are able to view graphic representations of relevant data and see near-real-time changes in areas of interest has the potential to positively influence fidelity and sustainability.

Ensure Infrastructure to Support and Sustain PBIS

One of the major tasks in pursuing a PBIS initiative is planning infrastructure to support PBIS. In traditional school settings, PBIS infrastructure typically refers to identifying resources for training and professional development, financial support for PBIS activities, people designated at the school and district level to lead and coordinate PBIS efforts, and ongoing access to technical assistance. The National PBIS Technical Assistance Center, funded by the U.S. Department of Education since the mid-1990s, has developed a well-organized system of supports and resources for training and technical assistance primarily designed for traditional schools. Secure care facilities have typically had less clear access to ongoing technical assistance, but the questions posed in Table 1 can help determine what types of infrastructure are needed and available. Administrators in secure care programs can systematically plan infrastructure to support PBIS, including allocating budgeted funds for PBIS activities, identifying resources for training and technical assistance, determining who at the both facility and central office levels will be responsible for coordinating PBIS activities, and ensuring that those individuals will be given sufficient time to do their PBIS tasks.

One form of infrastructure that has been identified as critical to successful PBIS implementation is ongoing access to technical assistance after initial training has been completed and implementation has begun (Bradshaw & Pas, 2011; Coffey & Horner, 2012). This form of technical assistance is most likely to have a positive impact on implementation when the assistance is delivered onsite in the form of coaching and when it focuses on practical implementation skills. Coaches may be selected from current facility personnel or new positions may be created. If current personnel are given coaching duties, then they must be given adequate release time from other duties to perform coaching responsibilities. Each of the Texas state secure facilities employs one PBIS coach whose responsibilities include organizing and leading the PBIS teams, gathering and summarizing data for the team, overseeing all PBIS activities, implementing Tier 2 CICO activities and gathering data for Tier 3 planning, and conducting Aggression Replacement Training (Glick & Gibbs, 2010) groups. These were new positions that were funded jointly by education and residential programs.

Specific skills are necessary for effective coaching, such as knowledge of PBIS, familiarity with methods for data collection and analyses, effective communication skills, ability to provide effective error correction and reteaching, and ability to facilitate teams (Coffey & Horner, 2012; Havercroft, Miller, & Howland, 2011). Coaches for secure care programs might also have an understanding of the unique characteristics and goals of secure care programs, including knowledge of the types of education and training represented in the staff who will be implementing PBIS. For example, some staff who will be involved in PBIS may have graduate degrees in behavioral sciences (psychology, for example), while others may have no formal education beyond a high school diploma. PBIS coaches in any setting need to be able to adapt training and coaching activities to the needs of the audience with whom they are working. In secure care, PBIS coaches may need to teach basic behavioral terminology and principles to enable staff to better understand why certain practices are important. There may also be a greater need in secure care for coaches to model the skills they want staff to use and provide specific feedback when staff do or do not use salient components of those skills. Thus, access to skilled coaches who are knowledgeable about PBIS and secure care is a consideration when designing support infrastructure.

Choose Practices That Are a Contextual Match

Any planning for PBIS must incorporate the cultural uniqueness of secure care. Questions presented in Table 1 can help leadership team members assess the culture of their facility or agency and how that assessment will affect design of critical features of PBIS. Secure care facilities vary widely in size, jurisdictional authority, population served (e.g., youth who have committed misdemeanors versus felony offenses), population demographics (age, gender, education level), and treatment philosophies. One aspect of PBIS that makes this framework a good match for secure care programs is that the PBIS framework can be customized to reflect the culture of the program where it is being used. Personalizing the elements of the framework to local needs and preferences might help with buy-in and could increase the potential for sustained implementation of PBIS. For example, dorm staff in one Texas facility determined that they wanted to use a paper “Cougar Cash” token system for PBIS acknowledgments. They liked the tangible aspect of staff handing youth a Cougar Cash token while giving behavior-specific praise. However, because facility rules stipulated that youth were not allowed to keep any items including Cougar Cash on their person or in their rooms, staff identified a creative solution. They converted unused niches that once held fire extinguishers into “Cougar Cash” mailboxes. When giving a Cougar Cash token, the staff member would recorded the award by noting the youth’s and staff’s name and the facility-wide expectation to which the youth had complied. A staff member handed the Cougar Cash to the youth, who then deposited it into the secure mailbox. The overnight staff recorded how much in Cougar Cash each youth earned in the Cougar Cash “bank.” Thus, staff created a high-quality token system that was compatible with facility rules.

Considering the unique contexts of secure care is also important for training and coaching. For example, a PBIS trainer who presents only examples of expectations (rules matrices) and reinforcement systems from elementary school settings may find the audience response from staff members who work with adolescents to be less than enthusiastic. Secure care staff undoubtedly will be equally skeptical to a trainer or PBIS coach who presents examples of reinforcement systems that include items considered to be contraband in secure care (e.g., posters, snack food, personalized items, trinkets, stickers, food coupons), disallowed due to security or safety concerns (e.g., field trips, use of electronic devices, one-on-one activities with staff), or otherwise not readily available (e.g., use of tablets for games, educational activities, or movies). In our trainings, we include an activity in which participants generate ideas for free or low-cost reinforcers that could reasonably be offered in their facility. Staff are always creative in their ideas for such reinforcers. For example, their ideas have included extended showers, use of a flat iron or curling iron, listening to music with staff and friends, use of “good” (e.g., name-brand) shampoo or conditioner, making PBIS posters, having photos taken to send to family, sending an email to family, and group activities such as talent shows or marching, dancing, poetry slams, or art contests.

Plan for Continuous Regeneration

No organization is static. Secure care programs are no exception. It is common for new initiatives to be introduced, often in the aftermath of leadership changes. Some new initiatives may be practically or conceptually at odds with PBIS. In these circumstances, there may not be clear guidance as to how new initiatives should be implemented along with existing practices, and whether existing practices are to continue. The challenge for any program is to incorporate new initiatives with PBIS while staying true to the PBIS core features (e.g., expectations that are clearly defined and taught, acknowledgment systems, consequence hierarchies that reflect severity of the misbehavior) and foundational principles (e.g., correct behavior can be taught, data are used to determine need and monitor impact, a tiered system of supports is needed to meet the needs of all youth). Table 1 lists questions for proactively planning for incorporating new initiatives. In our experience, this is easier to accomplish when all of the previously discussed recommendations are in place. If PBIS is high-profile in a facility, if it is implemented with fidelity, when there is strong administrative and staff support for PBIS, and if it is producing positive results, PBIS will be more likely to be continued, despite new initiatives that come along.

Another aspect of continuous regeneration includes ongoing training to refine and advance skills and scope of implementation. PBIS team members may need additional, more advanced training following their initial training. A facility that has been implementing Tier 1 with fidelity for a year or more will probably recognize the need for and want to pursue training in Tier 2 procedures and practices. In our experience, the logistics of training a large number of staff who work in multiple shifts presents a challenge in secure care settings. Therefore, PBIS teams and administrators must balance the need for ongoing training with practical matters. We recommend that PBIS leaders in secure care programs review the “Blueprint for School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Training and Professional Development” (Lewis et al., 2016), available from the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center’s website (www.pbis.org). While this document is targeted for traditional schools, the training and professional development concepts that are introduced in the document apply to any program. Based on guidance presented in this Blueprint, facility PBIS leadership might develop a long-term training plan and timeline, identifying staff to be trained, and PBIS concepts and practices to be emphasized over time.

Throughout this section, we have referenced the guiding questions presented in Table 1, designed to assist with PBIS planning. These questions are intended to prompt administrators and staff who are planning for PBIS implementation to consider and actively plan for those practices that increase the likelihood that PBIS will be implemented with fidelity and sustained over time in the unique environment of secure juvenile care.

Conclusion

We believe that PBIS is feasible in secure care settings. Based on available reports and data, we cautiously argue for its effectiveness in terms of impact on youth behavior and facility climate. However, like any comprehensive initiative, PBIS requires time and careful planning to be implemented correctly, and active steps are needed to enhance sustainability over time. While the extension of PBIS in secure care is still a relatively new undertaking, we can learn from the substantial research on sustainability of PBIS in traditional schools. That research and reports from secure jurisdictions that have been successfully implementing PBIS suggest particular activities to strengthen initial implementation and enhance the likelihood that PBIS will be sustained over time. Taking the time to carry out these steps can also help ensure that PBIS becomes an established practice that is seamlessly integrated into all facility activities and positively impacts facility practices and youth outcomes.

Since the late-1990s, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs’ Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports has provided a wealth of resources for technical assistance in all aspects of PBIS. In response to growing awareness of and interest in PBIS in secure care facilities, the Center is expanding its technical assistance resources for PBIS in secure care. A number of new resources and materials will be available in the coming months and years. For example, two new products for assessing fidelity of implementation are slated to be posted on the Center’s website in the fall of 2019. Additional tools and resources designed to guide and support planning, training, and implementation are scheduled to follow in 2020. Please watch the Center’s website (www.pbis.org) for these materials.

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.

ORCID iD

Brenda Scheuermann

References

Alonzo-Vaughn

Bradley

Cassavaugh

(2015). PBIS in Arizona department of juvenile corrections: How Tier II practices build upon Tier 1. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32(4), 321–333. doi:10.1080/0886571X.2015.1113458

Bradshaw

C. P.

Pas

E. T.

(2011). A statewide scale up of positive behavioral interventions and supports: A description of the development of systems of support and analysis of adoption and implementation. School Psychology Review, 40, 530–548.

Coffey

J. H.

Horner

R. H.

(2012). The sustainability of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78, 407–422. doi:10.1177/001440291207800402

Conley

Kittelman

Massar

McIntosh

(2018). What are patterns and predictors of CICO participation in U.S. public schools? Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation-briefs/patternspredictors-of-cico

Crone

D.A.

Hawken

L.S.

Horner

R.H.

(2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Fernandez

McClain

Brown Williams

Ellison

(2015). PBIS in Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice: Data dashboard and radar reports utilized for team data-based decision-making with facility team leader perspectives. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32, 334–343.

Glick

Gibbs

J. C.

(2010). Aggression replacement training (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Han

S. S.

Weiss

(2005). Sustainability of teacher-implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665–679.

Havercroft

K. A.

Miller

Howland

(2011, March). Enhancing SW-PBIS through training and skill development of internal coaches. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support, Denver, CO.

10.

Hockenberry

Sladky

(2018, December). Juvenile residential facility census, 2016: Selected findings. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/251785.pdf

11.

Johnson

L. E.

Wang

E. W.

Carpenter

Nelson

C. M.

Scheuermann

B. K.

(2013). Youth outcomes following implementation of universal SW-PBIS in a Texas secure juvenile facility. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 135–145.

12.

Jolivette

Boden

L. J.

Sprague

J. R.

Ennis

R. P.

Kimball

K. A.

(2015). Youth voice matters: Perceptions of facility-wide PBIS implementation in secure residential juvenile facilities. Residential Treatment of Children & Youth, 32, 299–320.

13.

Jolivette

Nelson

C. M.

(2010). Introduction to the special issue of “behavioral disorders”: Juvenile justice issues. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 4–6. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/43153825?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

14.

Kimball

K. A.

Jolivette

Sprague

J. R.

(2017). Agency-stakeholder reflections: Perspectives of state-wide adoption of the PBIS framework in juvenile facilities. Journal of Correctional Education, 68, 17–36.

15.

Lewis

Barrett

Sugai

Horner

Mitchell

Starkey

(2016). Blueprint for school-wide positive behavior support training and professional development. Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/blueprintguidestools/blueprint/pd-blueprint

16.

Lipsey

Howell

Kelly

Chapman

(2010). Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.

17.

Lopez

Williams

J. K.

Newsom

(2015). PBIS in Texas Juvenile Justice Department’s Division of Education and State Programs: Integrating programs and developing systems for sustained implementation. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32, 344–353. doi:10.1080/0886571X.2015.1113460

18.

Mathews

McIntosh

Frank

J. L.

May

S. L.

(2014). Critical features predicting sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 168–178.

19.

National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach (Committee on assessing juvenile justice reform, R. J. Bonnie, R. L. Johnson, B. M. Chemers, & J. A. Schuck, Eds., Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and social sciences and education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

20.

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (October, 2015). Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation blueprint: Part I - Foundations and supporting information. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

21.

Sandomierski

Kincaid

Algozzine

(2007, June). Response to intervention and positive behavior support: Brothers from different mothers or sisters with different misters? PBIS Newsletter, 4(2). Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/newsletters/volume-4

22.

Scheuermann

Duchaine

Bruntmyer

Nelson

Wang

Lopez

(2013). Perceptions of coaching activities to support PBIS implementation in secure juvenile correctional facilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 147–160.

23.

Scheuermann

Nelson

C. M.

Wang

Bruntmyer

(2015). Monitoring process and outcomes for positive behavior interventions and supports in residential settings: Better uses of data. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32, 266–279.

24.

Simonsen

Eber

Black

A. C.

Sugai

Lewandowski

Sims

Myers

(2012). Illinois statewide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Evolution and impact on student outcomes across years. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 5–16.

25.

Sugai

Horner

(2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.

26.

Texas Juvenile Justice Department. (2012). Effectiveness of positive behavioral interventions and supports: A report to the Texas legislature. Austin: Author.

27.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (2014). Guiding principles for providing high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings. Washington, DC: Author.

28.

Youth.gov. (n.d.). Youth involved with the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice/youth-involved-juvenile-justice-system