What are the organizational systems for tier 3?
- Bully Prevention
- SWPBIS for Beginners
- PBIS in the Classroom
- Tier 1 Supports
- Tier 2 Supports
- Tier 3 Supports
- District Level
- PBIS and the Law
- School Mental Health
- High School PBIS
- Equity & PBIS
- Exemplar from the Field
What are the Organizational Systems for Tier 3?
The Implementation Blueprint covers all three tiers of PBIS, and can be reviewed in full here (http://www.pbis.org/blueprint/implementation-blueprint). While we encourage you to review the entire Blueprint document, we have summarized the implementation guidelines for Tier 3 below.
Tier 3 teams typically function as problem-solving teams with several important factors: adequate resources, effective interventions, continuous monitoring, and administrative support. The main difference between Tier 3 and other levels of positive behavior support is the focus of the interventions. The defining features of Tier 3 interventions (i.e., identification of goals, data collection and analysis, summary statements, multi-element plans, and a monitoring system) address the needs of individual children. It is support that is focused on meeting individual needs; and the characteristics of individual students and specific circumstances related to them (e.g., differences in the severity of behavior, complexity of environment) dictate a flexible, focused, personalized approach. .This means that Tier 3 allows teams to vary features of the process (e.g., data collection tools used, breadth of information gathered, specificity and number of hypotheses generated, extent of the behavioral support plan, and degree of monitoring) to provide the most individualized behavior support possible.
Across all tiers, the PBIS Leadership Team has responsibility for establishing and implementing an action plan. Elements in the Implementation Blueprint form the implementation of the action plan (see figure below), and the following points are important about this planning and implementation process.
a) Comprehensive action planning targets benefits for all students, staff, and administrators.
b) Teaming occurs at multiple levels (i.e., school, district, state), and the actions of each team are mutually aligned and supported by each other.
c) Agreements by students, staff members, and leadership (e.g., principals, superintendents) are required before any action plan activity is initiated.
d) The action plan has three key features:
- Data to document and characterize the need and the evidence-based intervention or practice
- Schedule and lesson plan for the actual interactions and engagement with students
- Continuous progress monitoring of implementation fidelity and student progress
Tier 3 teams may not all be organized similarly and have the same responsibilities in each school. In general, we have found that there must be a leadership team at Tier 3 or at Tiers 2 and 3, to address issues of support and systems for Tier 3 to be effective for all students. But there must also be specific problem-solving teams that are unique to supporting the needs of each student with severe and intensive behaviors at the Tier 3 level. The Tier 2/ Tier 3 teaming model encourages efficient delivery of Tier 2/Tier 3 interventions by separating and defining the different tasks needed for Tier 2 and Tier 3 (see Figure 1). Some tasks are systems oriented, and some are student oriented. For example, Universal, Secondary and Tertiary Systems meetings have a specific focus on systems planning, which is separate and different from the student level planning which occurs during Problem- Solving meetings and individual student/family intervention teams at Tier 3. The ongoing planning and assessment tasks for Tiers 2/3 are a natural extension of the Tier 1/Universal leadership team's planning and monitoring of school-wide and classroom systems and student outcomes. Similar to Tier 1/Universal, Tier 2/3 systems planning needs to occur on a regularly scheduled basis and includes checking rates of student access as well as fidelity and outcomes of interventions. Separation of the various Tier 2/3 functions allows teams to prioritize efficient delivery of interventions based on student needs, and focus on building systems necessary for maximal effects.
The Tier 3 Systems team meetings focus on access, fidelity and overall effectiveness of Tier 3 interventions to include complex FBA/BIP and the more comprehensive person-centered, wraparound process. Dedicated planning and progress-monitoring time for students with Tier 3 needs is crucial due to the complexity of the systems, data, and practices required for successfully supporting these students. Tertiary Systems meetings do not include development of interventions for individual students; at Tier 3, each student has their own individual FBA/BIP or wraparound team that meets regularly to build networks of support, design and refine specific strategies, and review data. The Tier 3 Systems Team is instead charged with monitoring the student identification process, providing support for Tier 3 facilitators, ensuring quick access for students, and examining aggregate Tier 3 fidelity and outcome data in the same way the Tier 2 Systems team does for Tier 2 interventions. http://www.pbis.org/resource/906
Essential components/activities of PBIS Tier 3 Systems teams include:
- Tier 3 systems planning team (or combined Tier 2/III team) includes a Tier 3 systems coordinator and individuals who can provide (a) applied behavioral expertise, (b) administrative authority, (c) multi-agency supports (e.g., person centered planning, wraparound) expertise, (d) knowledge of students, and (e) knowledge about the operations of the school across grade levels and programs.
- PBIS teams have access to and involvement of (as needed, based on individual need and predetermined decision rules) external expert-level supports to assist with behavioral problem-solving and planning.
- PBIS teams receive training in problem-solving and the coach/behavior representative receives ongoing training for improved behavioral expertise.
- PBIS teams support implementation of a multi-level tier 3 approach that is aligned with services and supports provided within tier 1 and tier 2.
- PBIS teams are provided with criteria of best practice in problem-solving and receive recognition for excellence in problem-solving.
- PBIS teams monitor implementation progress of tiers 1 and 2.PBIS teams evaluate effectiveness of tiers 2 and 3 in a context of tier 1 improvements (i.e., student progress to goals in tiers 2 and 3 results in those students improving to goals at tier 1)
Tier 3 Individual Student Teams typically function as problem-solving teams with consideration of several important factors: adequate resources, effective interventions, continuous monitoring, and administrative support. The main difference between Tier 3 and other levels of positive behavior support is the focus and level of individualization of the interventions. The defining features of Tier 3 interventions (i.e., identification of goals, data collection and analysis, summary statements, multi-element plans, and a monitoring system) address the needs of individual students. It is support that Individual Student Teams are focused on meeting individual needs; and the characteristics of individual students and specific circumstances related to them (e.g., differences in the severity of behavior, complexity of environment) dictate a flexible, focused, and personalized approach. When implementing Tier 3 interventions, teams may vary features of the process (e.g., data collection tools used, breadth of information gathered, specificity and number of hypotheses generated, extent of the behavioral support plan or individualized student action plan and degree of monitoring) to provide the most individualized behavior support possible.
Essential components/activities of Individual Student Teams include:
- A uniquely constructed team including school, home, and community members
- Input/approval from student/ family about who is on the team
- Expertise that is logically matched to student needs and strengths
- An administrator who can allocate school resources as needed for plan implementation
- Establish rapport and engage the child and family team
- Identify strengths and needs through behavior intervention planning or person centered planning
- Assist the family developing a comprehensive plan
- Track progress over time
- Transition to less intensive interventions
Through the development and organization of supports to implement a continuum of practices and systems with sustained, high fidelity, the Tier 3 team works together to ensure that the plan is implemented with consistency and is effective in achieving the identified goals. The Tier 3 team identifies the training and resources needed, determines who is responsible for monitoring implementation, evaluates outcomes (via continued data collection), and communicates periodically, making adjustments in the plan, as needed.
The development of the PBIS framework, and the leadership team of Tier 3, is a process including the alignment to policy and systems with political support. The Implementation Blueprint Part 1 outlines the following figure, where features of the general implementation structure are highlighted. The goal is to enhance the visibility, specificity, and accountability of the interaction of structure (team) to action plan to implementation (team and coaching) to student benefit.
- Leadership teams across levels (state, district, school) (blue shaded boxes) are responsible for development and coordination of implementation action plans (white shaded boxes).
- Action plans function as the agreed upon template for implementation of evidence-based practices and include prioritized need, selection and alignment of evidence-based practices, high fidelity and local implementation capacity, and data-based decision.
- Coaching supports (yellow shaded boxes) serve as the mechanism for translating plans into actionable steps.
- Student benefit is always the primary target or end-goal for assessing practice appropriateness and implementation success.
1. Policy and systems alignment
Administrators are functionally the instructional leaders as well as the leaders in establishing school goals and climate. As a part of the Tier 3 team, the administrator both allocates resources necessary for successful implementation and aligns intervention implementation to school and district policy and systems. Because federal mandates provided by educational and human services agencies define conditions in which individual systems should be used to address concerns related to behavior, a teaming approach that is aligned to systems and policy is vital. For example, IDEA requires that a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) be completed and a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) be implemented when disciplinary sanctions result in extended periods (i.e., the first removal beyond 10 cumulative days and every change in placement) in which a student is removed from an environment or suspended (34 C.F.R. 300.520 (b) (c)). Individual systems of support are warranted in other circumstances as well (e.g., when problem behavior is interfering with educational progress).
2. Political support
Tier 3 is most effective when approached as a collaborative (rather than expert-driven) process. Support teams including the student's family, educators, and/or other direct service providers should be involved in assessment and intervention. It is also helpful to include people who have specific expertise in applied behavior analysis (ABA) and intervention design. In general, support teams should include people who know the student best, have a vested interest in positive outcomes, represent the range of environments in which the student participates, and have access to resources needed for support. Faculty and Staff buy-in of PBIS and specifically Tier 3 time and resource intensive interventions, is largely affected by the support provided by the administrator. Administrators have the ability to provide direction, organization and motivation of high-quality implementation. With the support of the administration, Tier 3 teams have the capability to provide support to teachers and support staff with individualized intervention implementation. The greater the perceived investment and backing of the Tier 3 team, the higher level of motivation staff exhibit in engaging in implementation (see Domitrovich et al., 2008; Rohrbach et al., 1993; Debnam, Pas, & Bradshaw, 2013).
- As a Tier 3 team, developing and integrating a continuum of evidence-based practices and systems of behavior support tailored to address the needs of ALL students is imperative. A continuum of behavior support is characterized by a range of evidence-based practices (i.e., interventions and strategies that are aligned with a range of problem behaviors based intensity and severity). A continuum of behavior support is not characterized by placement of students within tiers, service delivery programs (e.g., special education, mental health), or personnel roles (e.g., school psychologist and counselors, mental health workers), but more by an array of evidence-based practices.
- As a school-based team with a continuum outlined, a student centered individualized plan is developed by a uniquely formed student team. The plan is based on the function-based hypotheses statement and/or based upon the goals identified by the youth and family, to address the behavioral concerns and fit within the environments in which it will be used (see sections 4 and 5 for student specific implementation guidelines). Briefly, the behavioral support plan (for students who have IEPs this may also serve as the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) or the individualized student action plan include:
- adjustments to the environment that reduce the likelihood of problem
- teaching replacement skills and building general competencies
- consequences to promote positive behaviors and deter problem behaviors
- a crisis management plan (if needed)
- Tier 3 is a process that takes time to be effective. When severe episodes of problem behavior occur, it is important to provide a rapid response to ensure the safety of all involved and produce a rapid de-escalation of the behavior. To support Tertiary Prevention, therefore, safe crisis management procedures are needed and should be planned thoroughly in advance. It is important to remember that the goals of crisis management procedures are to ensure the safety of the student and all others, and to de-escalate the problem as rapidly as possible.
- Implementation Coordination
Prior to implementation of Tier 3 supports, the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Part 1 outlines the necessary factors to be in-place for full implementation:
As districts and buildings are considering implementation, it is important to attend to several important features that will ensure full implementation. These include having a district and building leadership team and allocating adequate FTE for Tier 3 coaching, or the facilitators, or the respective interventions. The district/building should also have a data system to track progress and outcomes for students needing Tier 3 supports.
- Why it is to have local implementation demonstrations examples …there are ways to organize the demonstrations…capacity and readiness (ways to check it- checklist, tools, etc.)…examples…here they are.
- Link to presentations of examples from PBIS Leadership Forum, 2015 on Tier 3:
- http://www.pbis.org/presentations/chicago-forum-15 (Forum Tier 3 presentation, 2015)
- List of readiness tools (FL tool, WI tool, Midwest tool, DCA)- list in the resources page
Given the core practices and systems delineated in the Implementation Blueprint Part 1, PBIS processes are based on important implementation logic, concepts, and guidelines (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).
*Although "capacity" is indicated in "Local Implementation Capacity" (5. above), all implementation blueprint elements and processes emphasize developing local resources for sustained and scaled PBIS implementation. Grants, contracts, and other outside sources of support are useful for "jumpstarting" an effort (e.g., professional development, policy-making, practice selection and demonstration, organizational efficiency); however, because they are temporary, implementation fidelity and achieved outcomes may not be durable or sustainable. Therefore, implementation of any practice must give priority to improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of existing resources, policies, procedures, and organizational and leadership structures.
E. Resources: Tools, videos, presentations, publications, exemplars
- Tools, Resources, and Links
- Supporting Research References
- Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Factors Influencing Staff Perceptions of Administrator Support for Tier 2 and 3 Interventions: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 116. doi:10.1177/106342661141057
- Lane, K. L., Oakes, W., Ennis, R. P., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). Identifying students for secondary and tertiary prevention efforts: How do we determine which students have Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs? Preventing School Failure, 58, 171-182.
- Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., & Germer, K. (2014). Developing the capacity to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports: How do we support our faculty and staff in preparing for sustainability? Preventing School Failure, 58, 159-170.
- Scott, T. M., & Cooper, J. (2013). Tertiary-Tier PBIS in Alternative, Residential and Correctional School Settings: Considering Intensity in the Delivery of Evidence-Based Practice. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(3), 101-119.
- Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Horner, R. (2008). Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 5-59.
- Eber, ., Breen, K., Rose, J., Unizycki, R. M., & London, T. H. (2008). Wraparound: As a Tertiary Level Intervention for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 16-22.
- Scott, T., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 5, 131–143.
- Walker, J. S., & Schutte, K. M. (2004). Practice and process in wraparound teamwork. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 182–192.
As we continue to improve the Tier 3 resources on www.pbis.org, we want to ask each of you if you have case studies, examples, materials or tools that you would like to share on the website. If you do have materials to share, you can access a form for the submission of your materials at 'Tier 3 Resource Submission.' Please follow the directions on the submission form to assist us in evaluating whether we can post the material or not. Remember that the OSEP TAC will not post products, materials, etc. that are proprietary or for profit in nature.
Walker, J. S., & Schutte, K. M. (2004). Practice and process in wraparound teamwork. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 182–192. Collaborative family—provider teams have become an increasingly popular mechanism for creating and implementing individualized service and support plans for children and families with complex needs. In the context of children's mental health,this type of individualized service planning is most often known as wraparound, and it has become one of the primary strategies for implementing the system of care philosophy. A consensus has been reached about the values that underlie wraparound; however, less agreement exists regarding the specific techniques or procedures that translate the value base into practices at the team level. Difficulties in reaching agreement about guidelines or standards for wraparound practice are exacerbated by the lack of a theory describing how the wraparound process produces positive outcomes. This article brings together theory and research from a variety of sources in proposing a model of effectiveness for wraparound. The model specifies relationships between team practices, processes, and outcomes. The model is then used as a basis for recommending specific practices for wraparound teamwork.
Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples.
Scott, T., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 5, 131–143.
This article proposes a framework for expanding the traditional presentation of wraparound and FBA to (a) view wraparound and FBA as concepts that are inextricably linked at the core of each level of the proactive systemic process of PBS and (b) understand how wraparound and FBA are critical features of prevention as well as intervention for creating safer schools for all students.
Eber, ., Breen, K., Rose, J., Unizycki, R. M., & London, T. H. (2008). Wraparound: As a Tertiary Level Intervention for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 16-22. Instead of resorting to exclusion or restrictive placements, schools need to be able to implement proactive interventions that match the complexity and intensity of the student’s needs When the wraparound process is embedded in a coherent system of graduated support, many of the systems needed to support this level of intervention are in place and the increased personalization and intensity are natural extensions of the multi-tiered support logic.
Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Horner, R. (2008). Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 5-59. This article describes the essential practices and systems of a schoolwide primary tier intervention. Specifically, we emphasized the importance of six approach to schoolwide discipline, (b) small number of schoolwide expectations that are operationalized into observable or behavioral terms, (c) formal procedures or lesson plans for teaching these behavioral expectations across real school settings, (d) continuum of practices for acknowledging students who display these behavioral expectations, (e) continuum of consequences for rule violations (both classroom and office managed), and (f) systems for collecting and reviewing data for decision making.
Tertiary-Tier PBIS in Alternative, Residential and Correctional School Settings: Considering Intensity in the Delivery of Evidence-Based Practice.
Scott, T. M., & Cooper, J. (2013). Tertiary-Tier PBIS in Alternative, Residential and Correctional School Settings: Considering Intensity in the Delivery of Evidence-Based Practice. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(3), 101-119. Students in alternative, residential, and correctional settings present challenges in the classroom and facility due to the complexity and intensity of their behaviors. In addition, the factors typically associated with these settings including crowding, inconsistency, and conflicting staff perspectives on education and discipline present challenges for the delivery of effective function-based intervention plans. Multi-tiered frameworks such as positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) provide mechanisms for organizing systems to be both proactive and responsive to students with the most challenging behaviors. However, the complexities of alternative, residential, and correctional settings require that PBIS be implemented with heightened intensity across tiers. This paper presents considerations for the effective implementation of Tier III systems and supports including function-based support planning (FBP).
Developing the capacity to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports: How do we support our faculty and staff in preparing for sustainability?
Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., & Germer, K. (2014). Developing the capacity to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports: How do we support our faculty and staff in preparing for sustainability? Preventing School Failure, 58, 159-170. School-site and district-level leadership teams rely on the existing knowledge base to select, implement, and evaluate evidence-based practices meeting students’ multiple needs within the context of multitiered systems of support. The authors focus on the stages of implementation science as applied to Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports; the importance of school-site expertise to select, implement, and monitor the use of evidence-based Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices to address the academic, behavioral, and social needs of students; and evidence-based guidelines for professional development. Together these practices ensure school-site leadership teams focus available resources for addressing data-based needs and achieving desired student outcomes.
Identifying students for secondary and tertiary prevention efforts: How do we determine which students have Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs?
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W., Ennis, R. P., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). Identifying students for secondary and tertiary prevention efforts: How do we determine which students have Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs? Preventing School Failure, 58, 171-182. In comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models, it is essential to have a systematic method for identifying students who need supports at Tier 2 or Tier 3. This article provides explicit information on how to use multiple sources of data to determine which students might benefit from these supports. First, the authors provide an overview of how to make an assessment schedule for all schoolwide data. Second, the authors outline how to create a blueprint for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports in a given school, including a description of the strategy or practice; inclusionary criteria; data to monitor progress; and exit criteria. Last, the authors provide an overview of how to connect students to support and monitor their progress.
Factors Influencing Staff Perceptions of Administrator Support for Tier 2 and 3 Interventions: A Multilevel Perspective
Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Factors Influencing Staff Perceptions of Administrator Support for Tier 2 and 3 Interventions: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 116. doi:10.1177/106342661141057 Although the number of schools implementing School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is increasing, and there is great demand for evidence-based Tier 2 and 3 interventions for students requiring additional support, little systematic research has examined administrator support for such programming. This article examines staff- and school-level factors associated with staff members’ perception of administrator support for SWPBIS and the implementation of Tier 2 and 3 interventions. Using data from 2,717 staff members in 45 elementary schools implementing SWPBIS, multilevel analyses were conducted. Results indicated that the schools’ organizational health played an important role in staff members’ perceptions of administrator support for SWPBIS and Tier 2 and 3 interventions, whereas the implementation quality of these interventions did not. Furthermore, perceived administrator support for Tier 2 and 3 interventions varied as a function of the staff members’ role in the school. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
This session will provide an introduction to the concepts and systems necessary to utilize Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA-BIP) to support students with challenging behavior. These sessions will focus specifically on the processes and tools needed to assist coaches, facilitators and problem-solving teams in planning, implementing, and evaluating FBA-BIP.
Developed by the University of New Hampshire, RENEW (Rehabilitation, Empowerment, Natural Supports, Education, and Work) is a unique application of the wraparound process designed for older, transition-aged youth, who are at the greatest risk of alternative placement and school dropout.
This training session will provide an overview of the systems, data, and practices of the wraparound process as a Tier III/Tertiary Level Intervention.