Translating Research into Effective Practice: The Effects of a Universal Staff and Student Intervention on Indicators of Discipline and School Safety.

Abstract This paper describes a universal intervention package aimed at improving the safety and social behavior of students in elementary and middle schools. Its goals were to assist schools to provide effective educational services, behavioral supports and social-behavioral skills teaching to all students in the school. Nine treatment and six comparison (no-intervention) elementary and middle schools in three communities participated. Descriptive data were used to evaluate the one-year effects of the intervention. The treatment schools implemented a school-wide discipline plan based on the Effective Behavioral Support (Sugai & Horner, 1994) model in addition to the Second Step violence prevention curriculum (Grossman et al., 1997) for one year. Comparison schools were not restricted in their use of interventions but received neither systematic technical assistance and training nor data based feedback on their performance. Regarding changes in office discipline referrals, treatment schools generally showed greater re ductions. Treatment school students showed improved social skill knowledge. Perceptions of school safety were not different across the schools after one year. In focus group interviews across some treatment and comparison schools, treatment school personnel generally reported improved operation of their schools and motivation to continue with the intervention. Comparison schools cited the need for improved school-wide intervention and technical assistance as a top need. Results are discussed relative to the need for examination of sustained use of the intervention over multiple years and more frequent and detailed outcome measures. Educating the diverse populations of students enrolled in today's schools is an ever-increasing challenge. More students are culturally diverse, have English as a second language, less prepared to enter school, and have a greater range of learning and behavioral challenges (Knitzer, 1993; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleish et al., 1990). Our schools are challenged Overall rates of serious violent crime in the school appear to be decreasing or at least stable in the past decade (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999). However, these and the rates of less serious behaviors (e.g., theft, bullying, harassment, threats) remain the highest in the industrialized world (Osofsky, 1997). The dramatic increase in the sensationalized mass school shootings in recent years (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999) has heightened awareness of the myriad adjustment problems our children present in the face of family, neighborhood and school stressors. Children are more at risk now than ever before (Walker & Eaton-Walker, 2000) to be pushed o nto a pathway leading to delinquency, violence, school failure and a host of other negative outcomes (Hawkins, et al., 1999; Sprague & Walker, 2000). Our challenge is to understand how to prevent and decrease the prevalence and incidence of children and youth that display behaviors that foster antisocial lifestyles. By presenting behaviors that are dangerous to themselves, other students, teachers, families, and community members, these children and youth disrupt teaching and learning in schools, create inhospitable neighborhoods, upset family structures and functioning, and ultimately become involved in the criminal justice and/or mental health system. Fortunately, we have research evidence that helps us to understand the nature of this challenge and to identify and characterize the features of an effective and efficient response. Many school climate factors contribute to the development of antisocial behavior in children and youth. These include, (a) ineffective instruction that results in academic failure; (b) inconsistent and punitive management practices; (c) lack of opportunity to learn and practice prosocial interpersonal and self-management skills; (d) unclear rules and expectations regarding appropriate behavior; (e) failure to enforce rules; and (f) failure to individualize instruction to adapt to individual differences (Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Mayer, 1995; Walker et al. …