Sustaining PBIS in Secure Care for Juveniles
The positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) framework has been applied for over two decades in public schools throughout the country. More recently it has been adopted, or is being considered for adoption, by an increasing number of states and facilities providing residential or secure care for juvenile offenders. During implementation these jurisdictions, like public schools, experience challenges during initial implementation and in achieving sustained implementation. In this paper, we discuss issues related to sustainability of PBIS in secure care settings. We describe recommended practices and unique characteristics of secure care that may affect sustained implementation.
PBIS, positive behavior supports, juvenile justice, secure care, sustainability
A growing body of research evidence from traditional school settings demonstrates that Tier 1 positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS), also referred to as schoolwide-PBIS (SWPBIS), when properly implemented, is effective in reducing disruptive behavior, office discipline referrals, rates of school suspension, and in improving school climate and perceived safety. Documentation of these results has been achieved through large-scale randomized controlled studies, quasi-experimental studies, and case studies conducted across elementary, middle, and high schools, and alternative schools (e.g., Barrett, Bradshaw, & Lewis-Palmer, 2008; Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Farkas et al., 2012; Horner et al., 2009; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008; Simonsen et al., 2012).
Encouraging outcomes from implementing SWPBS in these settings led to interest in extending PBIS practices to nontraditional [End Page 537] settings, such as disciplinary or therapeutic alternative schools (e.g., Farkas et al., 2012), residential schools (e.g., Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski, & Johnson, 2012; Jolivette, McDaniel, Sprague, Swain-Bradway, & Ennis, 2012; Swoszowski, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Heflin, 2012), and secure juvenile justice facilities (e.g., Fernandez, McClain, Williams, & Ellison, 2015). The focus of the present article is on implementation in the latter settings. The characteristics of youth in these settings further accentuates the need for PBIS. Secure juvenile justice facilities include a disproportionate number of youths who exhibit educational disabilities (especially learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders), mental health disorders, and substantial academic deficits, especially in the core areas of reading and math (Gagnon & Barber, 2010). These issues present additional challenges in programming for youth in secure care. Secure care programming typically involves behavior management systems that apply universally to all youth in the facility. These systems may not provide the additional or more intensive instruction or behavioral support needed by many youths with learning and behavioral disabilities.
The introduction of PBIS in secure care settings occurred incrementally, initially documented by Sidina (2006) in the Illinois Youth Center, Harrisburg, IL, and the Iowa Juvenile Home, Toledo, IA. In 2009, the Texas legislature passed legislation requiring the implementation of PBIS in state juvenile detention facilities, the first legislation of its kind. Georgia followed with a similar law in 2013. More recently, multiple state and local jurisdictions have undertaken initiatives to establish PBIS in state or county secure care facilities, including those in Arizona, West Virginia, California, Kentucky, Montana, Illinois, and Nevada. Additionally, Gagnon, Barber, and Soyturk (2018) surveyed principals of schools in juvenile justice facilities about PBIS implementation and found that approximately 84% of respondents reported that their school implements practices consistent with a multitiered framework for behavior support.
The goal of adoption efforts in secure care settings is to improve the conditions of confinement (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Scheuermann, Nelson, Wang, & Turner, 2012; Sprague et al., 2013). However, success in PBIS efforts will depend in part on understanding the unique context of secure care and the differences between secure care settings and traditional settings. All programs within a secure care facility function under the overarching priority of safety and security of youth and staff (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010), and to that goal, traditional secure care facilities for juveniles replicate security-oriented practices used in facilities for adult offenders. That is, they emphasize close supervision, strict restrictions on allowable activities and [End Page 538] materials, and use of various punishment responses for misbehavior. Supervision primarily is provided by correctional staff, who are responsible for overseeing youth across time (e.g., 24-hours, 7-days a week) and across settings (e.g., living units or special programs). Even in the school setting, correctional staff play an important role in supervising and escorting youth. Education programs in secure care operate similarly to typical schools in that they provide all required educational services, such as special education and programs for English-language learners. However, unlike other schools, youth in secure care settings typically are not allowed the types of independent movement (e.g., low supervision during hallway movement between classes) or social activities (e.g., casual interactions during lunch and before and after school) that are characteristic of most secondary schools. In terms of PBIS, educators and staff in secure care settings may be restricted in the types of incentives that can be offered, as many common incentives might be considered contraband or a security risk in secure care. For example, youth in secure care typically are not allowed to carry or possess many types of tangible items (e.g., gel pens, anything with a battery, hand sanitizer, or award certificates). Given the level of restrictions in the secure settings, designing reward systems may require creativity, as possession of tokens may be considered contraband.
Improving punitively-focused conditions of confinement that do little to support the developmental needs of adolescents is parallel with improving climate in public schools through implementation of PBIS. The benefits of improved secure care conditions for youth and staff are reduced rates of major or minor behavior incidents, increased time involved in academic instruction and other programming, lower rates of exclusionary discipline (e.g., disciplinary segregation, use of restraint), greater perceived safety, and improved rates of program completion. Reports from facilities that are implementing PBIS indicate positive outcomes on measures of these variables after adoption (Johnson et al., 2013; Jolivette, Boden, Sprague, Ennis, & Kimball, 2015: Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2012).
Implementation in secure care programs to date has largely been guided by extending the logic and principles of PBIS practices that have been documented in traditional school settings. However, as noted previously, the organizational structure and characteristics of secure care programs differ from those of public schools and can vary across facilities and jurisdictions. So far, these organizational variations have not been formally addressed in implementation recommendations, nor is there a single accepted or recommended implementation model across all types of residential facilities, including [End Page 539] secure care programs. For example, in some facilities, PBIS is implemented in specific programs, most commonly in education. In other facilities, PBIS is implemented facility-wide, across all programs. Facility-wide implementation has intuitive appeal by setting consistent expectations and standards for behavior, and promoting consistent responses to behavior across settings, activities, and staff. The empirical benefits of facility-wide implementation versus single program implementation are largely unknown, although Nelson, Wang, Scheuermann, and Turner (2011) provided documentation of corollary reductions in out-of-school behavioral incidents when PBIS was implemented in the education programs at secure juvenile facilities in Texas.
Systematic evaluations are needed to identify optimal conditions for implementation and sustainability of PBIS in secure care programs, to develop an array of implementation and assessment tools, and to assess the impact of PBIS in these settings. A large body of PBIS and related research has established recommended practices for each of these areas in traditional schools. However, very little empirical evidence documents best practices in alternative settings, especially in secure care programs. Secure care settings present unique characteristics that potentially include both challenges to and opportunities for maximizing sustainability. In this article, we present issues in three areas related to sustainability in the context of the current status of secure care for juveniles, and we provide recommendations for practice and future research. Those areas are practices related to exploration and early implementation, fidelity of implementation, and data collection and evaluation. Throughout, we discuss unique characteristics of secure care that may affect programming decisions and we give examples of how secure care programs have accommodated these characteristics in their PBIS planning. Given that the extension of PBIS to secure care is still largely in its infancy, our focus primarily is on Tier 1 (universal) practices. However, it should be noted that some secure jurisdictions are implementing Tier 2 supports. For example, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department has been implementing Tier 2 practices since approximately 2016 (Bailey-Josephs, Roberts, Lopez, & Scheuermann, 2017). Several studies have evaluated the implementation of traditional Tier 2 interventions in residential facilities, including Check-in/Check-out (Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski, & Johnson, 2012; Swoszowski, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2013; Swoszowski, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Heflin, 2012), Check-in/Check-up/Check-out (Swoszowski, McDaniel, Jolivette, & Melius, 2013; Swoszowski, Evanovich, Ennis, & Jolivette, 2017), and choice making (Jolivette, Ennis, & Swoszowski, in press). These studies have assessed adaptations to [End Page 540] these procedures to increase their utility in more restrictive settings. Adaptations have included additional youth-staff contact across the day, prolonging the intervention period to address both educational as well as housing programming, and function-specific reinforcement, to name a few.
Sustainability
The goal of any successful intervention or practice is sustainability, or to maintain implementation over time. Han and Weiss's (2005) definition of sustainability includes two important criteria: ongoing implementation of an intervention, practice, or program, and implementation with fidelity to the core principles of the intervention, even after initial resources used to support training and implementation have been withdrawn. A generally accepted standard for sustainability of PBIS in traditional schools is 3 to 5 years of successful implementation (Coffey & Horner, 2012). Sustained implementation is more likely to be achieved if specific steps that have been shown to predict sustainability of an initiative are taken during program planning, design, and implementation.
The work of the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN), founded by Dean Fixsen and Karen Blasé, has significantly advanced understanding of the complex and interrelated factors that facilitate efforts to take effective initiatives to scale and to sustain them over time. That work has influenced research specific to the sustainability of PBIS and other education initiatives. Three general categories of practices that are predictive of sustainability include steps to address during (a) exploration and early implementation, (b) monitoring and enhancing implementation fidelity, and (c) data collection and evaluation. Given unique challenges that may be present in secure care, each of these has implications for sustainability of PBIS in secure care settings.
Exploration and Early Implementation
Steps that should be taken during exploration and early development include obtaining staff buy-in, choosing practices that are a contextual fit with the facility or agency, planning for ongoing training and development, and obtaining technical assistance (Coffey & Horner, 2012; Pinkelman, McIntosh, Rasplica, Berg, & Strickland-Cohen, 2015; McIntosh, Mercer, Nese, Strickland-Cohen, & Hoselton, 2016). Traditionally, secure care programming is administered through a top-down approach, with major program decisions being determined [End Page 541] by facility or agency leadership, sometimes as the result of legislative mandates. Administrators may take into account staff input, but that input typically is provided through a one-time solicitation rather than ongoing participation in the decision-making process. However, even if the decision to pursue PBIS is driven by legislation (e.g., Texas, Georgia) or determined unilaterally by central office administrators, it is still feasible and advisable to solicit staff buy-in as part of initial planning activities. This typically is accomplished through multidisciplinary teams that are formed to place and develop components of PBIS (Alonzo-Vaughn, Bradley, & Cassavaugh, 2015; Fernandez et al, 2015; Lopez, Williams, & Newsom, 2015). Representatives of various disciplines within facility programs act as liaisons between their colleagues and the PBIS team, providing a two-way process for sharing input and decisions. This process can also serve to assuage staff concerns about the contextual fit of PBIS, such as concerns that PBIS means there will be fewer or reduced consequences for misbehavior, or how PBIS will affect each staff member's individual job responsibilities.
One program for youthful offenders took additional steps in an effort to solicit buy-in. A core feature of universal PBIS are expectations that are defined across all areas and activities within the school or facility. The PBIS team for this facility drafted a rules matrix to define facility-wide expectations for all areas (e.g., library, recreation and vocational areas) and activities (e.g., movement, morning hygiene). The team then presented that matrix to teachers and lead correctional officers and asked for feedback (e.g., Were all expectations captured? Did expectations reflect how activities are conducted?). Taking the extra step of inviting input before finalizing expectations may increase staff support enforcement of those expectations.
Two additional factors relating to exploration and early implementation that contribute to sustainability are shared vision for framework components and outcomes, and PBIS leadership at all levels (Coffey & Horner, 2012; McIntosh et al., 2016). We advise against leaving these to chance, but rather recommend pursuing activities specifically designed to obtain input and buy-in from facility and/ or program administrators (e.g., facility superintendents, principals of education programs). Given the large and complex nature of many secure care programs, support by the facility or program administrator is crucial to sustained implementation with fidelity. Facility and program administrators set the tone and expectations for the facility and for programs within the facility. In one PBIS pilot undertaken in a large secure care facility, the senior author encountered strong objections from the administrator of security program staff to PBIS [End Page 542] concepts (e.g., providing attention to rule-following behavior) and practices (e.g., communicating expectations for positive behavior, or acknowledging positive behavior). While virtually every other program in the facility successfully implemented universal PBIS components, the security program did not.
The extent to which administrators support PBIS and embrace shared visions for it may well determine outcomes. For example, we have observed that when facility and program administrators participate in training and initial planning, team members seem to be highly engaged in the process, and also embrace PBIS more enthusiastically than when administrators are not part of those activities. Administrator participation in initial training also helps establish baseline expectations for the quality and scope of Tier 1 practices, which in turn contributes to implementation fidelity. Also, programs sometimes face legislative or public pressure to adopt new programs or models. Administrators who understand basic PBIS principles and concepts will be better able to provide leadership in the adoption and integration of new programs while maintaining essential features of PBIS. Thus, buy-in and support of PBIS by facility wardens and program leaders is essential. Specific expectations for administrators should be clearly defined by those providing PBIS training and technical assistance, and administrators' roles in promoting successful long-term implementation and outcomes of PBIS should be part of early discussions about adoption.
If implementation is guided by a "driver" (an individual such as a program administrator) but does not become an institutionalized part of institutional routine, the danger is that once that individual moves on, the initiative will lose focus and investment by staff. This was observed by the second author when visiting a facility that had been implementing PBIS for a number of years, but when the program administrator retired, implementation faltered (e.g., coaching and PBIS team leadership were abandoned).
Another important set of practices associated with sustaining PBIS is training and professional development (Bradshaw & Pas, 2011; Coffey & Horner, 2012; McIntosh et al., 2013; Pinkelman et al., 2015). Training refers to both initial instruction and ongoing professional development, both of which can pose challenges for large, multidisciplinary secure care facilities that have multiple shifts across each day and throughout the week. Unlike traditional schools, staff in secure care vary greatly in education, job preparation, and professional experiences. Some staff may have operational understanding of behavioral principles that underlie many practices in PBIS, while others may have had no formal training in these important foundations. [End Page 543] The logistics of training large numbers of facility personnel who have such diverse needs can be daunting, and for that reason, leadership may opt to begin implementation in one program, such as education, and later extend to other programs and areas.
Three state juvenile justice systems (Texas, Georgia, and Arizona) that have reported positive impacts of PBIS describe potential challenges in staff training, such as distance between facilities, large numbers of staff to be trained (e.g., Lopez et al., 2015), and the need for ongoing training (e.g., Alonzo-Vaughn et al., 2015; Fernandez et al., 2015). Thus, another practice having implications for both planning and implementation is ensuring ongoing access to technical assistance for both training and coaching activities, including orientation training for new staff as well as support for PBIS coaches. Initial planning should address questions of who needs to be trained and the different levels of training required for each group, how refresher training will be provided, how new staff will be trained, and how ongoing technical assistance will be secured. For example, during initial training for facility administrators and PBIS team members in one jurisdiction, teams were asked to plan not only the PBIS features, but also how they would ensure their colleagues are trained and supported during planning and implementation.
Technical assistance should focus on practical implementation issues (Coffey & Horner, 2012). The Texas Juvenile Justice Department has invested in technical assistance through PBIS coaches to lead and support PBIS activities at each of the state-level facilities and has established relationships with Texas State University and state education service centers for training and other forms of technical assistance. Other juvenile justice jurisdictions access coaching and technical assistance through county, regional, or state education agencies. One significant difference for alternative programs, and secure care in particular, is the availability of individuals knowledgeable regarding both PBIS and secure care culture, characteristics, and systems.
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs funded the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (referred to hereafter as the "Center"). The Center is charged with providing leadership and support for all aspects of planning and implementing PBIS. Since its inception, the Center has expanded from its original focus on typical K–12 schools to all types of educational settings. The Center is now expanding the support and technical assistance tools and activities that are (and will be) available for secure care settings, although this aspect of the Center's work is not yet as fully developed as it is for typical schools. For example, the Center has carefully developed [End Page 544] a comprehensive array of tools, including a rich network to provide technical assistance for traditional schools, practice briefs and technical guides, and even training videos. Similar resources that focus on secure care facilities are now being developed. This is an important step toward making technical assistance more easily accessible and not cost prohibitive for juvenile justice jurisdictions.
Monitoring and Enhancing Implementation Fidelity
The second category of practices that are associated with sustainability occurs during implementation and includes monitoring and enhancing implementation fidelity. A critical feature of PBIS implementation is the fidelity with which practices and strategies are conducted. That is, in order to determine that a program, curriculum, strategy, or practice is effective, it is first necessary to establish whether it has been implemented as it was designed (Carroll, Paterson, Wood, Booth, & Balain, 2007). For example, if a practice purports to improve disruptive classroom behavior through setting clear expectations, teaching these to students, rewarding their compliance, and correcting behavioral errors, it must be demonstrated that each component of this practice is implemented according to established steps. Otherwise, if the practice is effective but not correctly implemented, practitioners cannot determine whether effectiveness was based on the practice itself, or to variables not related to the practice. Conversely, if the practice is improperly implemented and ineffective, the components responsible for this failure cannot be identified. Colleagues with the Center have developed a series of tools to guide, measure, and monitor the fidelity of PBIS application across tiers. The Implementation Blueprint and Self-Assessment (OSEP Technical Assistance Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, October, 2015; May, 2017) is a two-part manual that leads implementation teams through the process of raising staff awareness, getting needed buy-in, organizing teamwork, and staff training. The Benchmarks of Quality (Kincaid, Childs, & George, 2010) and the Team Implementation Checklist (Sugai, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, & Rossetto Dickey, 2012) address Tier 1 implementation fidelity, and are administered by teams within schools. The School-Wide Evaluation Tool (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2005) is a more formal instrument that is administered by individuals external to the school. The Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; Algozzine et al., 2014) assesses the extent to which the core features of PBIS are applied across all tiers. It is completed by a school team, facilitated by an external PBIS coach. To date, only one measure is formally available for assessing fidelity in residential settings across Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Jolivette, Swoszowski, and Ennis (2017) [End Page 545] adapted the TFI for use in residential programs, known as the Facility-Wide Tiered Fidelity Inventory (FW-TFI), which is a first step in the development process. This version of the FW-TFI reflects an assumption of facility-wide implementation, and results in a lower score if PBIS is implemented only in specific programs. Additional work is underway to assess the extent to which this instrument is sufficiently flexible to capture variations that exist in secure care. A modified scoring system may be needed for the FW-TFI, to accommodate facilities that implement PBIS in a single program as well as those in which it is done facility-wide.
Other fidelity assessment tools will be needed for secure care programs, including brief self-assessments such as the Team Implementation Checklist (Sugai et al., 2012), or fidelity measures designed exclusively for Tiers 2 or 3. Because of the intensive and individualized nature of Tier 3 practices in residential settings, assessing implementation fidelity is essential. Particularly in secure care, there can be adverse ramifications for youth if Tier 3 supports for significantly challenging behaviors are poorly implemented. Typically, responses to significant misbehavior in secure care settings (e.g., seclusion, isolation, transfer to higher security facilities, criminal charges, or referral out of the juvenile system to the adult system) are dictated by law or by facility policy and are often more oriented to safety and security than to the therapeutic needs of individual youth. Therefore, researchers should strive to identify the conditions that contribute to implementation fidelity across each tier of support in secure care settings.
Data Collection and Evaluation
This category includes practices involving the use of data for formative assessment of the impact of PBIS and sharing data-based outcomes of implementation. The use of meaningful, accessible data is critical to implementation fidelity and is a factor in sustainability (Coffey & Horner, 2012). Data are used to assess contextual factors and needs during initial planning, to provide ongoing formative feedback during implementation, and to assess long-term impact on facility climate and youth behavior (Scheuermann, Nelson, Wang, & Bruntmyer, 2015) Additionally, data are also used to assess to what extent social validity and cost-benefits of PBIS may contribute to sustained implementation. However, traditional practices in secure care may present challenges related to accessing and sharing data. While secure care programs compile copious amounts of data, those data are more often used for infrequent, summative assessments for program evaluation and accountability rather than for ongoing formative [End Page 546] assessments of program impact. Also, relevant data, such as number or percent of youth who received disciplinary consequences, may not be easily retrieved or may not be available in graphic formats that facilitate meaningful review and analysis (Jolivette, McDaniel, Sprague, Swain-Bradway, & Ennis, 2012; Scheuermann et al., 2015). Data systems needed to evaluate the impact of PBIS (e.g., monthly reports of major and minor behavior infractions disaggregated by location, youth, and behavior) may be unavailable or difficult to obtain and may require development of new data systems, such as dashboards that provide graphic summaries of data that reflect the impact of PBIS implementation (Alonzo-Vaughn, Bradley, & Cassavaugh, 2015; Fernandez et al., 2015; Lopez et al., 2015).
Traditional schools that implement PBIS typically use office discipline referrals (ODRs) as an index of major and minor student behavior and disciplinary consequences (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000). Those schools also have the opportunity to submit data to a national PBIS database, the Schoolwide Information System (SWIS), from which descriptive data are available regarding patterns of behavior reflected in ODRs (Gion, McIntosh, & Horner, 2014). Summary analyses of data submitted to SWIS give administrators a basis for comparing their school's performance on discipline measures (e.g., ODRs, in-school and out-of-school suspensions) with national averages for schools of similar size and grade level.
Secure care programs have systems for documenting misbehavior, but procedures for analyzing and sharing resulting data vary across jurisdictions. As part of PBIS in schools, agreed-upon minor and major misbehaviors are identified, defined, and differentially managed by teachers or through office referrals. In some secure care programs, any front-line staff may complete disciplinary write-ups or forms documenting misbehavior. In other programs, the front-line staff may refer those problems to more senior staff, who determine whether the behavior should be formally documented and if so, complete the required forms. Secure care programs may or may not have procedures for documenting minor misbehaviors, defined by Todd and colleagues (2010) as behaviors that are low intensity and not serious, or for differentiating between minor versus major infractions in terms of consequences. Furthermore, secure care systems do not have a centralized system for reporting the types of data that are relevant to PBIS monitoring and evaluation, nor is a modified version of SWIS available for non-traditional schools.
Sharing PBIS-related data with all staff is a recommended enabler for sustained implementation (Coffey & Horner, 2012). Sharing data may promote staff buy-in by showing discipline needs that may [End Page 547] not otherwise be apparent to all and may motivate staff to continue PBIS activities associated with positive outcomes. However, in our experience, sharing data with all staff is not a common practice in secure care facilities and may be logistically challenging. For example, the programming demands of covering multiple shifts makes it difficult to gather all staff for such purposes as explaining and discussing data.
PBIS planners in secure care programs should consider data sources that capture positive behaviors as well as negative behaviors and disciplinary consequences. Data that reflect positive behaviors might include number of youths who earn privileges or rewards as a result of performance in PBIS acknowledgement systems, academic performance (e.g., percent of students passing all classes, percent of youth who attain industry certifications, changes in grade point averages across grading periods), and school attendance. Arizona utilizes an automated scanner system that electronically awards, and tracks tokens given for positive, rule-following behavior, as well as sanctions for rule violations (Alonzo-Vaughn et al., 2015). The system can then generate real-time reports of tokens earned and rule violations by youth, staff, and unit. These data are invaluable for guiding PBIS team decisions and also for guiding individual youth decisions during multidisciplinary team meetings. The PBIS team at another facility for youthful offenders created a tracking form to record tokens earned by youth, and tokens spent on reward options. Still another facility used a similar approach to monitoring tokens earned by youth outside of school. The dorm overnight staff tallied tokens earned each day and recorded running totals for each youth.
Additional Considerations
Given the number of state and county juvenile justice jurisdictions that are implementing PBIS, it is clear that PBIS is feasible in these settings. It is also apparent that PBIS can be sustained, as evidenced in at least three state juvenile justice jurisdictions. We have described factors that contribute to the sustainability of PBIS in secure care settings and may require special attention during planning and implementation. Two additional factors may also pose potential challenges for sustaining PBIS in secure care. First, secure care is characterized by multiple programs for treatment, education, security, vocational training, and other purposes, each with different goals, priorities, and practices (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, & Chapman, 2010). It is important to ensure representation from those programs on the PBIS leadership team, particularly if the goal is facility-wide implementation. [End Page 548] In addition, the leadership team should take the time to align PBIS practices with goals and priorities of programs and operations within the facility. For example, adaptations may be needed to implement PBIS by security personnel, in that security policies and practices may impose greater restrictions on youth access to the rewards that are available in facility programs. Other questions that the leadership team may need to address include: How will PBIS be implemented in treatment programs (e.g., mental health units, substance abuse programs)? How do the planned elements of PBIS align with other initiatives, such as restorative justice or trauma-informed care? How will the fidelity of PBIS be protected as new program initiatives are implemented? Who will be responsible for integrating new initiatives with PBIS? Critical elements of this alignment and differentiation among programs should be made clear to avoid confusion and to ensure implementation of each program or set of practices with fidelity.
Facilities adopting PBIS also must ensure that sustained resources are available to support facility PBIS leadership teams. State or agency wide support is a critical first step to ensure adequate resources and encourage buy-in across the facility. Monetary resources, specified in the facility budget, are needed to support purchasing rewards/reinforcers to promote youth adherence to facility expectations as well as rewards to acknowledge staff adherence to the PBIS framework. Facilities must work with state/agency entities to ensure there is a designated budget for PBIS and that these funds are budgeted annually. Funding for PBIS does not have to be substantial, as many facilities are able to get items donated or staff can brainstorm free/inexpensive items (and we discourage over-reliance on food and material rewards); however, some funding is necessary.
From modest beginnings and over a period encompassing barely two decades, PBIS is emerging as a viable framework in secure care for juveniles. It holds great promise as a means to move from a correctional mindset that focuses on punishment to one that supports and encourages positive change, both in youth and the staff that serve them. Whether this change continues and endures systemically will be determined not only by practices in the areas we have described, but also by changes in public policy and attitudes driven by the recognition that far greater benefits to youth in secure care, and to society, are possible through positive behavioral support.
We strongly advocate the adoption and adaptation of PBIS in secure care for incarcerated juvenile populations, and hope that this paper will help facilities and systems achieve sustainable implementation. We also advocate for a research agenda that addresses such questions as the following: [End Page 549]
1. What are the technical assistance needs (e.g., training, coaching, materials, assessment tools) of secure care facilities that are interested in pursuing PBIS, and how do those needs vary across staff or programs within the facility?
2. What are the effects of PBIS on youth behavior, facility climate, and the behavior and attitudes of staff compared with facilities and jurisdictions that adhere to traditional models of juvenile penology?
3. What are the differential effects of facility-wide PBIS implementation versus implementation in single programs within a facility?
4. What is the impact of PBIS on youth transition from secure confinement to school, work, and community?
5. What is the impact of PBIS on the recidivism of youth compared with recidivism rates for youth in facilities in which it has not been implemented?
6. How does the fidelity of PBIS implementation across multiple tiers affect facility and youth outcome measures? [End Page 550]
