Redirecting the Pipeline

By Rebecca D. Woolbert, Kiki Yablon, & Robin M. Kuhn, University of Kansas

What happens when juveniles get arrest records instead of diplomas?  While there are no national statistics reported on juvenile recidivism, incarceration as a juvenile is correlated with a lower likelihood of graduating high school and a higher likelihood of incarceration as an adult (Aizer & Doyle, 2015; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).  Furthermore, chronic and violent juvenile offenders are more likely to offend into adulthood, and that continuity is exacerbated the earlier juveniles start offending, with certain offenses (e.g., drug offenses) more likely to be repeated (National Institute of Justice [NIJ], 2014).  Juvenile offenders who continue to engage in criminal activity into adulthood are likely to increase the severity and lethality of their crimes (NIJ, 2014).  Current practices in response to juvenile misconduct in schools are simply not working.  Punitive measures (e.g., suspension, expulsion, and law enforcement involvement) in response to challenging behaviors (e.g., aggression and drug abuse) can end up criminalizing youth instead of teaching (Nelson, Jolivette, Leone, & Mathur, 2010; Shippen, Patterson, Green & Smithersman, 2012), a phenomenon known as the school to prison pipeline.  Could changing our response to challenging behaviors by supporting our youth with positive behavior practices disrupt this unfortunate pattern (Shippen et al., 2012)?

A recurring theme in literature regarding juvenile delinquency, and one of the contributing factors to the school to prison pipeline, is that while individuals are reprimanded for their transgressions, their good behavior is often ignored (Alonzo-Vaughn, Bradley, & Cassavaugh, 2015).  Further, common consequences of school misconduct, suspension and expulsion, likely negatively reinforce problem behavior and create unstructured time for more of it, instead of redirecting the juvenile to more appropriate behaviors (Shippen et al., 2012).  Disruptive behaviors that result in punishment in schools, such as aggression, negative verbal behavior, and bullying, continue to occur during incarceration and may prolong it (Sprague, Scheuermann, Wang, Nelson, Jolivette, & Vincent, 2013).

The idea of using reinforcement procedures before punishment procedures, or focusing on what we want to see the individual do more frequently, is a core ethical practice of applied behavior analysis (ABA).  Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a type of ABA designed to broaden an individuals’ behavioral repertoires and rearrange their environment to enhance quality of life and reduce problem behavior (Carr et al., 2002; Jarmolowicz & Tetrault, 2015).  While typically applied in school settings to promote appropriate behavior and decrease the likelihood of initial incarceration, it appears PBIS may be beneficial in juvenile justice settings to reduce not only the probability of further offenses while incarcerated, but perhaps recidivism as well (Ennis & Gonsoulin, 2015; Lampron & Gonsoulin, 2013; Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2019).

PBIS in Schools

Mayer (1995) identified four components of intervention that schools could use to target antisocial behavior (i.e., recurring instances of behavior that goes against societal norms).  Called constructive discipline, the package involved targeting behaviors for increase rather than decrease, identifying the learner’s current repertoire of skills in order to know what areas to work on, implementing interventions that aligned with the learner’s repertoire, and defining reinforcement contingencies individual to each learner (Mayer, 1995).  PBIS incorporates constructive discipline into a multi-tiered prevention model, typically with three levels of support (“SWPBIS for beginners,” 2019).  Tier I is building-wide support, Tier II targets specific groups of students who do not respond to Tier I practices, and Tier III consists of even further individualized interventions (Horner & Sugai, 2015).  Out of the 132,853 elementary and secondary schools in the United States, 26,316 were implementing PBIS as of August 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019; “SWPBIS for beginners,” 2019).  School-wide implementation of PBIS (SW-PBIS) has resulted in fewer challenging behaviors, increased prosocial behaviors, and fewer office referrals (Bradshaw, Waasdrop, & Leaf, 2012) as well as decreased suspensions and expulsions, bullying, drug abuse, and aggression (Horner & Sugai, 2015; “SWPBIS for beginners,” 2019).  Tier II and Tier III supports have also effectively increased appropriate behaviors and decreased problem behaviors as well as the use of crisis management procedures (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013; Swoszowski, McDaniel, Jolivette, & Melius, 2013) in alternative school settings (i.e., alternative education, residential education, juvenile detention settings, and juvenile corrections settings; Ennis, Jolivette, & Boden, 2013; Fallon & Feinberg, 2012; IRIS Center, 2019; Mathur & Nelson, 2013; Sprague et al., 2013; Swoszowski, McDaniel, Jolivette, & Melius, 2013).

PBIS in the Juvenile Justice Setting

Behavior analytic technologies have been successfully applied to behaviors characteristic of juvenile delinquency since as early as at least the 1960s (Burchard, 1987; Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1973; Kirigin, Braukmann, Atwater, & Wolf, 1982; Philips, 1968). However, research involving successful implementation of PBIS in alternative settings, especially juvenile justice systems, is in its early stages (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013; Sprague et al., 2013).  Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Sprague et al. (2013) guided a research project implementing facility-wide PBIS (FW-PBIS) within 50 juvenile justice settings across the country.  Specific components of the project included learning modules for staff to introduce the principles of PBIS (e.g., positive reinforcement procedures, setting behavioral expectations, etc.), analyzing data and responding accordingly, a check-in/check-out system for youth to increase self-management of problem behaviors, functional behavioral assessments and behavior service plan protocols, treatment fidelity measures, and outcome evaluations (Sprague et al., 2013).  While Sprague, Jolivette, Boden, and Wang (in press) provided data-driven results regarding treatment fidelity and social validity, data on the effects FW-PBIS had on juvenile behavior were not reported.  In Sprague and colleagues’ large-scale implementation, juvenile outcome data (e.g., measures of behavioral incidents) were hard to standardize: Facilities developed different definitions of aberrant behavior, used different data collection systems, and experienced high resident turnover rates (Sprague et al., in press).  Overall, however, the authors concluded that FW-PBIS implementation could be successfully implemented in secure juvenile justice settings, with treatment fidelity, similarly to traditional SW-PBIS in general education settings.

In 2013, the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice initiated a statewide rollout of PBIS implementation within the state’s 27 juvenile justice facilities (Fernandez, McClain, Williams, & Ellison, 2015).  Facilities across Georgia had often implemented facility-wide token systems to target problem behaviors; the token systems were abused (e.g., gambling, hoarding, and bullying surrounding the tokens) and staff did not implement them consistently.  After implementing FW-PBIS (Fernandez et al, 2015), facilities across the state reported a decrease in youth-on-youth and youth-on-staff assaults and found that increased fidelity of implementation resulted in improved outcomes for residents (Fernandez et al., 2015).  Georgia’s Department of Juvenile Justice has devoted a section of its website to PBIS implementation, including a brief overview of PBIS, contact information for the PBIS team, training videos, and examples of PBIS at various facilities across the state (“Positive Behavioral Supports,” 2019).  In one such example, staff at a facility organized a Halloween event for residents who had maintained 100% attendance at certain group events and who had not been reported for incidents for two weeks (Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2019).

Unique to Georgia’s rollout was the creation of two data monitoring systems: The Data Dashboard and the Radar Report (Fernandez et al., 2015).  The Data Dashboard graphically displayed facility-wide trends in behavior, while the Radar Report allowed for analyzing levels and trends of problem behavior among specific groups and individuals in order to inform Tier II supports (Fernandez et al., 2015).  The authors anecdotally reported positive outcomes of the two monitoring systems, noting that the Data Dashboard allowed for a change in focus from reacting to behavior in the moment to analyzing trends in behavioral data and responding accordingly, and the Radar Report resulted in effective Tier II interventions and more efficient staff meetings.

PBIS in Educational Settings within Detention Centers

While juveniles are incarcerated, they are entitled to effective education just like their unincarcerated counterparts (Sprague et al., 2013).  Furthermore, the school to prison pipeline, specifically the aspects of suspension and expulsion, results in loss of academic instruction, which can lead to truancy and dropout; loss of academic engagement is correlated with an increased risk for arrest and incarceration (Mathur & Nelson, 2015).  In 2009, Texas passed legislation requiring multi-tiered support (i.e., PBIS) in state-operated schools within the juvenile justice system to ameliorate reading deficits and improve behavior management (Lopez, Williams, & Newsom, 2015).  Implementation of SW-PBIS in a Texas secure juvenile justice setting resulted in a decrease in behavioral incidents that required referrals to security, an increase in average attendance to school within the facility, and an increase in earned state industry-based certifications (i.e., demonstrating competency in career and/or technical skills; Lopez et al., 2015).  A secure residential juvenile justice setting in Arizona has also successfully implemented FW-PBIS, issuing tokens for appropriate behavior (e.g., behaviors characterizing respect and honesty) and rule violations for inappropriate behaviors (e.g., bullying and lying), as well as implementing multi-tiered supports in the educational setting of the facility (Alonzo-Vaughn, Bradley, & Cassavaugh, 2015).

Next Steps in Redirecting the Pipeline

“It is ironic that we have such high rates of serious antisocial behavior at the same time that the behavioral sciences are making so much progress in understanding and intervening on the contextual conditions that contribute to the development of antisocial behavior” (Biglan, 1995, p. 479).

While the literature discussing the expansion of PBIS to restrictive settings is limited, it is growing; while initial FW-PBIS research is promising, it is still in the beginning phases. Thus, research is needed on the long-term effects of PBIS implementation in juvenile justice settings (Nelson, Scott, Gagon, Jolivette, & Sprague, 2008; Simonsen & Sugai, 2013; Sprague et al., 2013;).  In addition to its effectiveness in terms of behavior change and education, different components of PBIS in juvenile justice settings need to be examined (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013).  Additionally, expansion of the PBIS continuum from a more restrictive setting to a mainstream setting (e.g., from juvenile justice back to general education) should be studied, since the goal of any restrictive placement should be to move to the least restrictive environment (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013).  Additionally, an obvious difference between SW-PBIS in general education and FW-PBIS in juvenile justice settings is the amount of time individuals will come into contact with the supports; the duration of incarceration varies from time typically spent in a school setting (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013).  Therefore, future research should analyze this element of PBIS in restrictive settings (Simonsen & Sugai, 2013).

Of course, it would be even more beneficial to intervene before a juvenile is ever in a position to be incarcerated.  Dishion, Connell, Weaver, Shaw, Gardner, and Wilson (2008) stated that intervention at various milestones during childhood development, specifically the toddler years, could reduce the likelihood of delinquency in adolescence. The development of behavioral cusps has a marked effect on parents’ engagement with their children: Behaviors such as walking and language require families to adapt and respond, with such contingencies forming the basis for acquisition of increasingly complex repertoires (Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1997).  Additionally, antisocial behavior within families may contribute to delinquent behavior as well as maintain it (Serna, Schumaker, Hazel, & Sheldon, 1986).  The Family Check-Up (FCU), a familial intervention targeting ineffective family management practices in childhood to prevent future problem behavior, could be another way to prevent delinquent behavior in adolescence (Dishion et al., 2008).  Typically used during early childhood, the FCU consists of an initial contact session, where the family is directly observed in its natural environment (i.e., the home); followed by an assessment session (i.e., an interview focusing on parental concerns); and finally a feedback session, where observations from the first two sessions are synthesized to identify parental strengths, limitations, and resources (Dishion et al., 2008).  When implemented with adolescents, the FCU was correlated with improved parent monitoring (i.e., supervision) and decreased substance use among adolescents (Dishion, Nelson, & Kavanagh, 2003).  Perhaps the FCU can be implemented in schools as a Tier II intensive, individualized intervention for targeted individuals (i.e., students engaging in problem behavior; Reinke et al., 2009).  While the goal of the FCU is to prevent problem behavior from occurring, perhaps it would be beneficial to implement with willing family members of incarcerated juveniles, further enhancing the effects of FW-PBIS implementation (Dishion et al., 2003).

The numerous challenges to conducting empirical research in juvenile justice settings include the aforementioned difficulties with definitions and measurement, as well as attrition, safety and security, schooling issues (e.g., schedules, removal from class for disciplinary reasons), assent, and limited sample sizes (i.e., small pool of participants in each facility; Jolivette, 2013).  Perhaps most important in terms of future research would be analysis and discussion of these challenges and identification of tactics to surmount them, both antecedently and postcedently (Jolivette, 2013).  Hopefully, time and data will demonstrate the positive long-term effects of FW-PBIS on recidivism rates among juvenile offenders (Alonzo-Vaughn et al., 2015; Ernis & Gonsoulin, 2015; Fernandez et al., 2015; Lopez et al., 2015; Sprague et al., 2013), and successful disruption of the school to prison pipeline.

Photo: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

References