Universal School-wide Screening to Identify Students for Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions 2008 National Forum for Implementers of School-Wide PBS Doug Cheney, Ph.D., Washington PBIS Coordinator, University of Washington, Seattle, Kimberli Breen, M.S., C.A.S., M.A., Technical Assistance Director, IL-PBIS Network, Jennifer Rose, M.Ed., Loyola University Chicago,

Acknowledgements Schools in the Washington PBIS network Schools in the Illinois PBIS network Paul Rose, Counselor, Cowherd Middle School - East Aurora School District: Dr. Meda Thompson, Principal, B.J. Ward Elementary - Valley View School District: Carolyn Olander, School Psychologist, B.J. Ward Elementary - Valley View School District:

Session Agenda Background and Context for using Screening Some evidence from Washington schools using SSBD Application of using SSBD in Illinois Discussion of using Screening Tools

Universal Screening Reliable Tools available for past 20 years Universal screening offers opportunity for prevention, yet…. Schools reluctant to conduct behavioral screening: –Fear of “stigmatizing kids” –Concerns regarding efficient/effective methods of supporting identified youth Source: Walker, Cheney, Stage, Blum (2005)

PBIS Systems Often: Develop behavior support team Monitor ODRs and teacher referral Use school or ODR criteria (2-5 ODR) to nominate students for Tier 2 Capture externalizing disruptive students

Universal (school-wide) behavioral screening : Addresses prevalence of emotional/behavior problems among school-age children ranges between 9%-13% (Tier 2 & 3 Students) Provides a valid and reliable approach for identifying student behavioral issues –Externalizing and Internalizing students are identified Highlights schools as an ideal environment for addressing mental health-related issues –“Less stigmatizing” than clinics –Potential to reach large groups of youth and families –Successfully identify kids with internalizing behaviors

Universal Screening Behavioral screening viewed as normative, e.g., Vision, Hearing, Literacy Good fit with RTI behavior model Links to prevention programs & reduces need for more intensive services later – Untreated emotional/behavioral issues correlate with negative outcomes Poor grades & personal relationships High school dropout & Unemployment Incarceration, Substance abuse, Suicide

Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) Research in the 1980s on predictors Multiple gating procedures following mental health model Externalizing and Internalizing dimensions Evidence for efficiency, effectiveness, & cost benefits Exemplary, evidence-based practice US Office of Special Education, Council for Children with Behavior Disorders, National Diffusion Network

Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007) Teachers Rank Order 3 Ext. & 3 Int. Students Teachers Rate Top 3 Students on Critical Events, Adaptive & Maladaptive Scales Gate 1 Gate 2 Pass Gate 1 Classroom & Playground Observations Gate 3 Pass Gate 2 Tier 2,3 Intervention Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral

Gating Procedures Gate 1 – Nomination based on Definitions Gate 2 – Score and Criteria for: –Critical Events – Steals, Tantrums, Assaults adults, Damages property, Painful Shyness –Combined Frequency Index Adaptive Behavior – Follows rules, Gains peer attention positively, Expresses anger appropriately, Positive socials with peers Maladaptive Behavior – Refuses to participate in activities, Challenges teacher limits/rules, Manipulates peers, pouts/sulks

SSBD History in Washington Used in research over the past 10 years –10 districts statewide School psychs review & adopt for district Teachers informed & process reviewed in staff meeting Screening takes 1-2 hours per teacher to complete Tier 2 Students identified

Washington Schools: Study 1 Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum (2005) 3 Elem. Schools, 80/80 SET, students (70 Ext./54 Int.) Ext. > 1 s.d. on Social Skills and Prob Behs./ Not Int. Screening & ODR: >ODR, >Prob. Behs. Screening+ODR increases # of at-risk students Screening and use of school supports maintains students at SST level (Gate 2 Tier 2), and fewer FBA/BSP or referred to Special Ed (Gate 3, Tier 3)

Study 2: Cheney, Stage, Hawken, Lynass, Mielenz, & Waugh (in review) 119 Tier 2 CCE Intervention, 86 Comparison Students in 18 schools 73/119 students (61%) graduate within 2 yrs SSBD & Behavioral Measures differentiate graduates, comparisons, nongraduates. Graduates lower problem behaviors & increase social skills in growth curve model.

SSBD Differentiates Grads, Non- grads, Comparisons GraduatesNon-GraduatesComparison SSBD Critical Events 5.9 (2.8)5.4 (3.0)5.2 (2.8) SSBD Maladaptive 31.2 (10.5) a 37.2 (5.7) b 32.2 (7.8) a SSBD Adaptive32.3 (8.0) a 28.0 (4.8) b 30.6 (6.8) a

Decrease in Problem Behavior, SSRS

Universal Screening in Illinois 6 school districts, 18 schools Spent 1 year focused on creating Secondary & Tertiary Level Systems –Specifically Check-in/Check-out Emphasis on building “system capacity” Identify youth early Support youth with effective interventions Exit/transition youth off of interventions Progress-monitor –Individual youth response to interventions –Interventions themselves

Universal Screening in Illinois : Preparation Process District-level commitment Secondary PBIS system in place –Provides seamless transition from screening to intervention Logistics of preparation SSBD Coordinator Overview for all staff Schedule & organize ‘day of administration’

Universal Screening: School Profile K-5 Elementary in southwest suburban Chicago 65+% low income Total enrollment of 580 reflects diverse student population 65% Hispanic 17% Black 13% White 5% Asian/Other 24% Mobility Truancy concerns

Universal Screening: Illinois Application Implemented universal screening in mid- March –Identified total of 82 students Represents 14% of enrollment –Majority of students classified as externalizers 56% of identified students –However a significant percentage (43%) met criteria as internalizers

Universal Screening: Illinois Application Capitalized upon existing system of secondary interventions –Recruited additional adult volunteers for CICO –Paired 2-4 students for CICO with adults, prior to sending permission slips –Tailored secondary level interventions to meet unique needs of internalizers (e.g., using social skills groups) –Contacted parents of internalizers prior to sending home permission slips –Used SWIS/CICO data collection system

Universal Screening: Illinois Application Lessons learned: –Address slow response for granting permission Incorporate area on permission slips for parents to request additional information Anticipate need for follow-up phone calls, sending additional permission slips

Universal Screening: Illinois Application Lessons learned : –Pair students and teachers based on physical proximity –Increase size of CICO groups –Keep a “reserve” of adults to add to CICO –Review data weekly Identify students ready to transition to less intensive level of support/students who are not responding to CICO

Resources Severson, H.H., Walker, H.M., Hope-Dolittle, J., Kratochwill, T.R., Gresham, F.M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology. 45, Walker, H.M., Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders. Longmont, CO. Sopris West. Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 7(4)