1. Wisconsin PBIS State Leadership Team
Impressive Accomplishments
Critical Moment in Time
Rob Horner
University of Oregon

2. Appreciation for role of Leadership Team
Agenda
National status of PBIS
How Wisconsin fits in the national picture
Considerations for scaling and sustaining PBIS
Appreciation for role of Leadership Team
State Depart/ Higher Ed/ Families/ Districts/ CESA/ School Board
Work Group Targets: Perfect
Goals

3. Current Status
PBIS is being implemented successfully across the nation.
Emphasis on full implementation across stages
Implementing across all three tiers
Sustaining
New focus over next five years will be on linking PBIS to mental health and juvenile justice outcomes
Social Emotional Learning, Arrests
Scaling to a level of Systems Change
Emphasis on building local capacity to implement with > 80% of schools.
Renewed need to focus on primary purpose of PBIS

4. Why SWPBIS?
The fundamental purpose of SWPBIS is to make schools more effective and equitable learning environments.
Predictable
Positive
Consistent
Safe

5. Experimental Research on SWPBIS
SWPBIS Experimentally Related to:
Reduction in problem behavior
Increased academic performance
Increased attendance
Improved perception of safety
Reduction in bullying behaviors
Improved organizational efficiency
Reduction in staff turnover
Increased perception of teacher efficacy
Improved Social Emotional competence
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, Bradshaw, C., Waasdorp, T., Leaf. P., (in press). Effects of School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), Ross, S. W., Endrulat, N. R., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Adult outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 14(2) Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C., & Leaf , P., (2012) The Impact of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Bullying and Peer Rejection: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2012;166(2): Bradshaw, Pas, Goldweber, Rosenberg, & Leaf, 2012 Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach D.B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, ( submitted) Implementation Effects of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports on Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools.

6. Main Messages Effective (academic, behavior)
PBIS is effective, equitable, efficient.
Effective (academic, behavior)
Equitable (all students succeed) Efficient (time, cost)

7. Schools using PBIS August , 2014
21,611

8. 14 States with more than 500 schools
Number of Schools Implementation SWPBIS (Tier I) by State
August 2014
14 States with more than 500 schools
Wisconsin

9. Proportion of Schools Implementing SWPBIS by State August, 2013
7 States with > 50%
Compare States able to move beyond 30-50% from those staying in that range
What proportion is needed for functional systems change?
Wisconsin

10. Fidelity of PBIS Implementation (number of schools reporting fidelity, and number of schools meeting Tier I fidelity) by state (July 2014)
Wisconsin
Establish a Professional Culture where Fidelity of Implementation is collected and used regularly

11. PBIS in Wisconsin

12. Local School Demonstrtions
Visibility
Political
Support
Funding
Policy
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Technical
Expertise
Evaluation
Local School Demonstrtions

13. Implementation Science Frameworks
WHO
Teams
WHEN
Stages
WHAT
Interventions
HOW
Cycles
HOW
Drivers
Full set of icons with headers

14. Successful Student Outcomes
Program/Initiative/Framework (e.g. RtI)
Performance Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Systems
Intervention
Training
Facilitative
Administration
Competency Drivers
Organization Drivers
Implementation
Drivers
There are two categories of Implementation Drivers: Competency and Organization.
When these core components are in place they provide the support to a successful implementation that will be sustained.
Competency Drivers are mechanisms that help to develop, improve, and sustain one’s ability to implement an intervention to benefit students. Competency Drivers include: Selection, Training, Coaching, and Performance Assessment
Organization Drivers are mechanisms to create and sustain hospitable organizational and systems environments for effective educational services. Organization Drivers include: Decision Support Data System, Facilitative Administration, and Systems Intervention
PD is not a panacea to address every problem
PD must be housed in a systems to support this effective practices resulting in successful sustainable student outcomes.
Selection
Decision Support Data System
Leadership
Adaptive
Technical
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008

15. Implementation Stages
Implementation occurs in stages:
2 – 3 Years
Exploration
Installation
Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005
(c) Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, 2004

16. Stages of Implementation
Steve Goodman
Focus
Stage
Description
Exploration/ Adoption
Decision regarding commitment to adopting the program/practices and supporting successful implementation.
Installation
Set up infrastructure so that successful implementation can take place and be supported. Establish team and data systems, conduct audit, develop plan.
Initial Implementation
Try out the practices, work out details, learn and improve before expanding to other contexts.
Full Implementation
Expand the program/practices to other locations, individuals, times- adjust from learning in initial implementation.
Continuous Improvement/ Regeneration
Make it easier, more efficient. Embed within current practices.
Should we do it!
Work to do it right!
Implementation is not an event
A mission-oriented process involving multiple decisions, actions, and corrections
Work to do it better!

17. Percentage of Schools Implementing
Predicted Trajectory based on theory of critical mass
80%
Percentage of Schools Implementing
50%
Replications
Too often, actual results
Model Demonstrations
10% 0%
Early
Later
Time in Years
Steve Goodman

18. Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success Rob Horner, Don Kincaid, George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett, Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson, (2014 ), JPBI
Exploration
Installation
Initial Imp
Full Imp
Leadership Team
Funding
Visibility
Political Support
Policy
Training
Coaching
Expertise
Evaluation
Demos
Interviews and Data Reviews with the PBIS implementers from Seven States that had at least 500 schools using PBIS.

19. Exploration and Adoption Installation Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Innovation and sustainability
Leadership Team (coordination)
Do you have a state leadership team?
If you do, how was your first leadership team developed?
Who were members?
Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process?
Was any sort of self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)?
What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase?
What were critical issues that confronted the team as it began to install systems changes?
What were specific activities the team did to ensure success of the initial implementation efforts?
Did the team change personnel or functioning as the # of schools/districts increased?
What has the Leadership team done to insure sustainability?
In what areas is the State “innovating” and contributing to the research and practice of PBIS (e.g. linking PBIS with literacy or math)?
Do you have a state leadership team?
If you do, how was your first leadership team developed?
Who were members?
Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process?
Was any sort of self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)?
What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase?

20. Descriptive Summary: Oregon
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

21. Descriptive Summary: Missouri
Exploration / Installation /Initial Imp / Full Imp & Innovate

22. Descriptive Summary: North Carolina
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

23. Descriptive Summary: Colorado
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

24. Descriptive Summary: Florida
Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

25. Descriptive Summary: Maryland
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

26. Descriptive Summary: Illinois
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

27. Lessons Learned Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation
Colorado: Started with Leadership Team
Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after implementation expanded.
Missouri: Strong initial demonstrations led to strong state support
All states began with small “demonstrations” that documented the feasibility and impact of SWPBIS.
Only when states reached demonstrations did scaling occur. Four core features needed for scaling:
Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding
Technical capacity (Local training, coaching, evaluation and behavioral expertise)
Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact ( )
Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement)
Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data

28. Percentage of Schools Implementing
Predicted Trajectory based on theory of critical mass
80%
Percentage of Schools Implementing
50%
Replications
Too often, actual results
Model Demonstrations
10% 0%
Early
Later
Time in Years
Steve Goodman

29. No “Tipping Point” 0-10%: Start with Demonstrations
Document feasibility and impact
10-40%: Build capacity to improve efficiency
Improve speed and cost to implement PBIS
Local trainers, coaches
Expand range of valued outcomes
40%-80%: Scale to Level of Systems Change
Adequate technical assistance capacity
Alignment strategy
Formal presence within decision-making at state level
Emphasis on systems (school, district, region, state)
Data, data, data, data

30. Compression Implementation
Policy Incentive
Expectation
Network of Trainers
Fidelity Measure
Coaching Network
Outcome Measures
Alignment Protocols
Defined roles at all levels of system
Technical
Assistance Capacity
Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation
Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation
Grassroots Demand

31. Moving from 50% to 80%
Formal System for Initiative Selection and Alignment
Implement with Depth
Tier I through “classroom”
Establish data systems (BOTH data collection and data use)
Tiers II and III
Greater attention to PBIS Systems
Embed and Adapt (with consistent core)
Presence at decision points (which are not always well defined)
Make PBIS relevant to current target areas
Support new strategies to achieve PBIS core features.
NOTE: The key to effective adaptation is regular measurement of fidelity

32. Team Based Implementation
Districts
Coherent District Policy
Social behavior is a priority in district improvement plan
District commitment to selecting practices that are evidence-based
District process for aligning multiple initiatives.
Evaluation Capacity
Data systems that inform decision-making
and provide policy feedback
** Fidelity and Impact
Recruitment, Hiring, Evaluation
“Preference will be given to individuals with knowledge and experience in implementation of multi-tiered academic and behavior supports.”
Team Based Implementation

33. Districts Annual Faculty/Staff Orientation
HOW
Drivers
Annual Faculty/Staff Orientation
Defines PBIS as a priority
Defines what to expect in a school using PBIS.
30-60 min of annual orientation
Professional Development (Training)
PD is always tied to core improvement goals
PD typically involves distributed training (multiple events)
PD is always linked to on-site coaching.
PD is always linked to fidelity measure
Coaching

34. Questions, Comments, Insights
Summary
PBIS is a major component of effective education
PBIS will be part of federal initiatives for the next decade
Delivering on the promise will require greater attention to:
Building local technical assistance capacity (train, coach, eval, expertise)
Evaluation of fidelity as well as impact
Linking PBIS with mental health and justice outcomes
Building the state-level capacity to align, embed, adapt while retaining core features.
Questions, Comments, Insights