1. Leanne S. Hawken, University of Utah Danielle Starkey, Missouri, SWPBS Ericka Dixon, Winfield Primary Illinois PBIS Forum, 2012

2.  Overview BEP/CICO Principles  Where have we been and where are we going?  BEP/CICO at the state/regional level.  BEP/CICO at the school level.

3. 3

4. Student Recommended for BEP/CICO BEP/CICO Implemented Parent Feedback Regular Teacher Feedback Afternoon Check-out Morning Check-in/DPR Pick-up BEP Coordinator Summarizes Data For Decision Making Bi-weekly BEP Meeting to Assess Student Progress Exit Program Revise Program BEP-CICO Implementation Process

5.  Started at Fern Ridge Middle School, Elmira Oregon  Crone, Horner, & Hawken (2004). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York, NY: Guilford Press  5 schools ◦ 3 elementary ◦ 2 middle schools  One BEP Coordinator served: ◦ 15-20 students elementary ◦ 20-30 students secondary  Excel Data System ◦ No web-based system

6.  To support more students, some schools have multiple BEP/CICO check-in, check out facilitators.  Expanded to include high school & preschool populations  New data system ◦ SWIS CICO ◦ Current – 1999 schools K-12 use SWIS CICO data base.  Fidelity of Implementation ◦ Individual Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SET)

7. Crone, Hawken, & Horner (2010). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (2 nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press 7

8. Leanne S. Hawken, PhD - 20118 Hawken, Pettersson, Mootz, & Anderson (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-in, Check- out Intervention for Students at Risk. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

9.  Effective in reducing problem behavior for: ◦ Elementary school students (Cheney et al., 2009; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; McCurdy, 2007; Stage, Cheney, Flower, Templeton, & Waugh, 2010; Todd, Kaufman, Meyer, & Horner, 2007). ◦ Middle School Students (Hawken, 2006; Hawken & Horner, 2003; March & Horner, 2002) ◦ Students in Urban School Settings (McCurdy, 2007) ◦ Students with disabilities (Hawken, et al., 2007, MacLeod, Hawken, & O’Neill, 2010) ***Problem behaviors measured via direct observation, rating scales, changes in percentage of points earned on DPRs, & reductions in ODRs

10.  Effective in increasing academic engagement, including for students in high school settings (Hawken & Horner, 2003, Swain-Bradway, 2009)  Reduced need for Tier 3 and special education supports following CICO implementation (Hawken, et al., 2007)  Overall range of effectiveness of CICO ranges from 40% to 70% (Fairbanks, et al., 2007) (Hawken, et al., 2007)

11.  More effective with students with attention- maintained problem behavior (March & Horner, 2002; McIntosh, et., al., 2009, Campbell & Anderson, 2008)  Effective across behavioral functions (Hawken, O’Neill, & MacLeod, 2011)  Students who do not respond to CICO benefit from function-based, individualized interventions (Fairbanks, et., al., 2007, March & Horner, 2002; Macleod, Hawken, & O’Neill, 2010)

12. Supporting Check-In, Check-Out Implementation Danielle Starkey, Regional SW-PBS Consultant Heart of Missouri Regional Professional Development Center

13. Missouri SW-PBS Training Structure MO SW-PBS

14. Missouri SW-PBS Personnel State Coordinator (1) State Data/Web Consultant (1) Tier 2/3 Consultants (6) Regional Consultants (24) MO SW-PBS

15. Missouri SW-PBS Tier 2 Readiness Indicators and Guidelines Building the Foundation for Effective Implementation of Check-In, Check-Out

16. Readiness for Tier 2 SW-PBS universal systems are consistently implemented with fidelity – Schoolwide – Non-Classroom – Classroom MO SW-PBS

17. Readiness for Tier 2 SW-PBS Universal System Outcomes – Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) Score (80/80) within past 12 months – Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ) Score of 80% or higher – Self-Assessment Survey (SAS) 80% of staff report that Schoolwide, Non-Classroom & Classroom Systems are in place MO SW-PBS OR WITH

18. Readiness for Tier 2 Office referral data indicates 80 percent of students in the 0-1 referral range System in place to document classroom minors Consistent use of school-wide data for making decisions as evidenced by monthly Big 5 Data Reports MO SW-PBS

19. Tier 2 Training Content

20. Systems Training Foundational Knowledge The Tier 2 Team Student Identification Process – Nominations – Existing school data – Screening instrument scores Monitoring Progress & Evaluating Outcomes using the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers MO SW-PBS

21. Intervention Training Check-in/Check-out (BEP-CICO) Check & Connect Social Skill Instructional Groups Targeted Environmental Interventions MO SW-PBS

22. Lessons Learned – CICO/BEP Higher level of success with implementation when solid Tier 1 is in place. Staff training on intervention components is essential, with a review each school year. Tier 2 Systems in place are critical – Team – Student Identification Process – Monitoring Progress & Evaluating Outcomes MO SW-PBS

23. Winfield Primary Ericka Dixon erickadixon@winfield.k12.mo.us

24.  Total Enrollment: 386-404  Grade Levels Served: Pre-School-2 nd Grade  Free and Reduced Lunch Rates:

25.  Big Five Data Showing Increases in Problem Behavior  Intervention to Build Relationship  65% of the day spent on discipline  Received Verbal Permission from Parents for Students to enter CICO Intervention

26. 2010-2011 Referrals: 133 2011-2012 Referrals: 204

27.  22 Students Utilized the CICO Intervention  17 Staff Members were Utilized as Coordinators  7 Students were dismissed  9 Students Continued  3 Students Moved  3 Students Moved to Tier III Intervention

28. Positives Negatives  Intervention Built Relationships  Saw Some Improvements in Behaviors  One More Thing to Do  Time Consuming for Both the Classroom Teacher and Staff Coordinator  Minimal Successes  No Set Criteria to Exit the Program  No End Result Known  No Real Training in the Intervention-felt thrown in  Coordinators felt like counselors

29.  Received Professional Development from our PBIS RPDC Representatives  Designed Entrance and Exit Criteria  Created a Teacher Recommendation Form  Created a Daily Points Sheet  Created a Flow Chart and Celebrations for Fading CICO Students  Created a Letter to Inform Parents of the CICO Program  Made Personal Phone Calls to CICO Student Parents  Received Written Permission from Parents to Start and Exit CICO  Offered On-Going Professional Development to Staff

32. PositivesNegatives  Major Behavior Referrals Decreased  Staff Members felt Supported  Professional Development Improved Implementation Process  Students began to Self- Monitor Behavior  Parents began to get involved  Coordinators felt like support teams instead of counselors  Classroom Teachers continued to struggle with effective feedback after each classroom activity.  This intervention was not working for Tier III Students

36.  Continued Professional Development on CICO Intervention  Continued Revising, Refining, and Monitor of CICO Intervention  Continued Staff Development for all Tier I and Tier II Interventions  Implement CICO in Pre-School  Implement Self- Monitoring Intervention  Implement Check-N- Connect Intervention  Implement Social Skills Intervention  Implement a Universal Behavior Screener

39. Ratio of at minimum 4:1 for Pre-corrects/Positives to Negative

41. 1.Student Data Inventory 2.Teacher Nomination 3.Universal Screening

42. If you need materials, advice, etc., please email Ericka Dixon. erickadixon@winfield.k12.mo.us