The California PBIS Coalition (CPC) is a collaborative organization using evidence-based, culturally relevant practices to build the capacity for all stakeholders in the implementation of PBIS as a multi-tiered system following the National PBIS Blueprints for professional development, implementation, and evaluation.
Each year the CPC will provides many opportunities to support implementation of PBIS. Please visit our events page for more information.
The purpose of the California PBIS Coalition (CPC) is to establish a network for State Education Leaders, County Offices, School Districts and Schools implementing multi-tier frameworks through Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS). It is our intention to create the opportunity for implementers dedicated to the effective implementation of PBIS to have a professional learning community where they can access information and support leading them to desired academic, behavior, and social-emotional outcomes for all California students, families and communities. The CPC is dedicated to providing a standard of practice for PBIS through the work of technical assistance centers across the state and the use of a statewide PBIS Recognition System. These centers are committed to supporting you in implementing PBIS in your area.
CPC Technical support is given by organizations from the southernmost region of the state from Orange County, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, High Desert Mountains through the Central Valley, Coastal Areas and up to the San Francisco Bay, and Northern California regions. These regional centers work in direct collaboration with the California PBIS Technical Assistance Center partner Susan Barrett and the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center co-director Dr. Kent McIntosh. Funding for CPC comes from the National Center, California Technical Assistance Center and the work of the core members from the regional technical assistance sites.
The Regional Technical Assistance Centers focus on the critical features of team training, coaching and District Implementation Teams by developing the internal capacity of organizations to support sustainable practices following the key evidence-based PBIS features and the use of PBIS Applications to monitor fidelity and behavior data for decision making.
George Sugai and Brandi Simonsen
Center for PBIS & Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, University of Connecticut
June 19, 2012
Although initially established to disseminate evidence-based behavior interventions for students with Behavior Disorder l, the National TA Center on PBIS shifted focus to the school-wide behavior support of all students, and an emphasis on implementation practices and systems. As a result, PBIS is defined as a framework for enhancing the adoption and implementation of a continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve academically and behaviorally important outcomes for all students.
As a “framework,” the emphasis is on a process or approach, rather than a curriculum, intervention, or practice. The “continuum” notion emphasizes how evidence- or research-based behavioral practices are organized within a multi-tiered system of support, also called “response-to-intervention” Within this definition, the mutually beneficial relationship between academic and social behavior student success is. Finally, the important supportive relationship between positive school- and classroom- wide culture and individual student success is emphasized.
The PBIS framework has a number of defining characteristics. First and foremost, student outcomes serve as the basis for practice selection, data collection, and intervention evaluations. These outcomes are (a) academic and social, (b) individual and small group, and (c) judged on their educational and social value and importance.
Second, rather than focusing on specific packaged or manualized interventions, the PBIS framework highlights specification and adoption of evidence- and research- based practices that characterize packaged programs. These practices are organized to support students across (a) school-wide (e.g., teaching and acknowledging a small number of positively stated behavioral expectations, clear and distinctive definitions for rule violations, and data-decision rules), (b) non-classroom (e.g., active supervision, reminders, teaching setting-specific routines), (c) classroom (e.g., effective academic instruction, active supervision, high praise rates), and (d) individual student (e.g., function-based behavior intervention supports, explicit social skills instruction, wraparound processes) routines.
Third, consistent with the response-to-intervention approach, PBIS is characterized by the establishment of a continuum of behavior support practices and systems. These practices are unified with procedures for universal screening, continuous progress monitoring, team-based decision making rules and procedures, explicit monitoring of implementation fidelity, and local content expertise and fluency. In addition, the PBIS framework stresses the importance of embedded and continuous professional development, monitoring based on phase of implementation, and systems-based competence and supports (e.g., policy, leadership, funding).
Finally, the effective, efficient, and relevant use of data or information to guide decision-making links the above characteristics. The collection, analysis, and use of data are considered essential for a number of PBIS purposes: (a) need clarification and priority, (b) matching of need and intervention or practice, (c) evaluation of research-base for practice selection, (d) student responsiveness and outcome impact, (e) intervention or practice fidelity, (f) social and ecological validity, and (g) implementation adjust for efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance.
Included in the 16,000 school teams that have been trained on the PBIS implementation framework (especially, tier 1 or primary prevention), are 3 states with more than 60% of schools involved in PBIS implementation, 9 states with more than 40%, and 16 states with more than 30%. This impact reflects efforts by state and district leadership teams to build capacity for sustaining and scaling up their implementation of PBIS. Schools that are effective in their implementation have (a) more than 80% of their students and staff who can indicate the desired positive behavioral expectations for a given school setting, (b) high rates of positive acknowledgements for contributing to a positive and safe school climate, (c) have more than 70-80% of their students who have not experienced an office discipline referral for a disciplinary rule infraction, (d) a good idea about which students require more intensive behavior supports, and (e) systems for regular review of their school-wide behavior data to guide their PBIS action planning and implementation decision making.
In addition, since the 1980s, a number of experimental studies have documented the effectiveness of the PBIS framework at the school-wide level. This body of research supports improvements in problem disciplinary behavior, school climate, organizational health, student bullying behavior and peer victimization, and academic achievement.