jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 171
Wraparound and Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports
in the Schools
LUCILLE EBER, GEORGE SUGAI, CARL R. SMITH,
AND TERRANCE M. SCOTT
S
TUDENTS WHO DISPLAY SEVERE EMO-
tional and behavior problems in our
schools represent a relatively small
proportion of a school’s total student
enrollment; however, they require significant amounts of expertise, time, and resources. They can also be major destabilizing influences in schools. Although most
educators are dedicated to meeting the
academic and behavioral needs of these
students, they become frustrated by their
inability to establish and sustain effective
programming options. In addition, for
many of these students, the development
and implementation of effective behavior
supports requires active and efficient involvement of more than just school
personnel—in particular, it requires the
family to be involved. Together, the wraparound process (Burns & Goldman, 1999)
and the positive behavioral interventions
and supports (PBIS) approach (Sugai,
Horner, et al., 2000) offer a potentially important and efficient means of improving
the educational and behavioral programming of students with or at risk of developing severe problem behaviors.
The wraparound process is a tool for
building constructive relationships and
support networks among youth with emoJOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
Effective school-based programming for students with behavioral difficulties continues to challenge educators. Consensus is growing that prevention and early intervention must be prioritized, agencies must
collaborate, and family–school partnerships must be improved so that effective interventions are actually
implemented.This article explores how the school-based wraparound approach and a school-wide systems approach to positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) work together to create more
effective school environments and improved outcomes for students with or at risk of behavioral challenges. Complementary aspects of these wraparound and PBIS approaches are described, and future
directions for research and practice are explored.
tional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and
their families, teachers, and other caregivers. Careful and systematic application
of the wraparound process can increase
the likelihood that appropriate supports
and interventions are adopted, implemented, and sustained (Burns, Schoenwald, Burchard, Faw, & Santos, 2000;
Eber, 1997, 1999), thereby leading to improved behavior functioning for a given
youth. Programming for these students is
more likely to be effective in school environments that support and promote positive, proactive behavior among all students. PBIS is a systems approach for
establishing a continuum of proactive,
positive discipline procedures for all students and staff members in all types of
school settings (Sugai, Sprague, Horner,
& Walker, 2000). Based on a three-tiered
AND
B E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
prevention model, PBIS offers a consistent research-based approach for promoting prosocial behavior of (a) students
without chronic problems ( primary prevention), (b) those students at risk for problem behavior (secondary prevention), and
(c) students with intensive behavioral
needs (tertiary prevention). Within this
model, elements of the wraparound process are evident, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels, and the comprehensive wraparound process is used
for implementing tertiary interventions
for students with the most intensive needs.
The application of school-wide PBIS enhances wraparound for students with intensive needs by providing an environment of proactive interventions across all
students and a school- and communitywide “systems” approach for prevention
VOL.
10,
NO.
3 , PAG E S 1 7 1 – 1 8 0
171
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 172
and early intervention. PBIS augments
wraparound by giving educators, family members, students, and community
agency staff members access to researchvalidated practices and processes for
changing behavior across the range of student life domains.
The purpose of this article is to describe how a school-wide approach to
PBIS complements the school-based wraparound process to improve outcomes for
students with severe emotional and behavioral problems. We describe the background and need for wraparound and
PBIS; define and describe the wraparound
process in schools, including the legal
context of expectations for school personnel under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA
’97); describe the features of school environments that support the wraparound
process; present guidelines for the development of effective wraparound teams
and plans within the context of schoolwide PBIS; and propose future directions
for practice and research to improve our
understanding and use of wraparound and
school-wide PBIS approaches.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The need for collaborative and comprehensive systems that identify and organize
relevant services for students with EBD
and their families has been clearly indicated in the literature (Knitzer, Steinberg,
& Fleisch, 1990; S. W. Smith & Coutinho,
1997; Sugai, Horner, & Sprague, 1999).
Children and youth with EBD have not
fared well in our public schools. For example, compared to typical students and
students with other disabilities, students
with EBD have disproportionately higher
rates of dropout and academic failure, and
they are more likely to be arrested, poor,
unemployed, involved with illicit drugs,
and teen parents (Carson, Sitlington, &
Frank, 1995; Kauffman, 1999a; Nelson &
Pearson, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Students who are labeled
EBD also are among the most likely of any
disability group to be educated in restrictive and exclusionary placements (U.S.
Department of Education, 1998). Even
more disturbing is the fact that these stu-
172
JOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
AND
dents are more likely to spiral through
multiple special education, mental health,
juvenile justice, and child welfare services
and agencies and to have a poor prognosis
for success (Koyanagi & Gaines, 1993).
Although collaborative efforts have
shown some promising outcomes for youth
and systems (Bruns, Burchard, & Yoe,
1995; Eber, Rolf, & Schrieber, 1996; Malloy, Cheney, & Cormier, 1998; Stroul,
1993), blending resources, language, decision making, and best practices across
systems and disciplines remains a complex and sometimes daunting task (Malloy et al., 1998; Schorr & Julius, 1998). In
addition, discipline-based differences regarding treatment choice and priorities,
implementation fidelity, criteria for treatment success, and outcome accountability create slow and ineffectual systems
and processes. These expectations may be
particularly relevant as we face challenges
in designing and providing appropriate
programs for youth who may be involved
with the juvenile justice system or who
may have significant mental health needs
(Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000).
Many of these same interdisciplinary
hurdles also are apparent even within the
school itself (e.g., categorical classroom
delivery, multiple teaming processes).
Such issues hamper efforts to provide the
effective and sustainable behavior supports necessary to establish and sustain
competent school cultures or host environments that support the adoption and
sustained use of research-validated practices and systems (Horner & Sugai, 1999;
Latham, 1988; Zins & Ponti, 1990). Under these circumstances, disagreements,
cynicism, and lack of collaboration result
in inconsistent policy and practice. Curriculum decisions tend not to be databased, and when a practice is adopted, it
often is implemented incompletely, inconsistently, or for too short a period of
time (e.g., 2 to 4 years; Latham, 1988).
Failures with practice create increased
cynicism and dissatisfaction, promoting
new practices that are adopted with similarly insufficient zeal. C. Smith (2000)
suggested that the behavioral and discipline expectations of IDEA ’97 are at risk
for such broad-based systemic failure unless sustained training efforts and system
B E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
supports are established to ensure that
school personnel reliably demonstrate the
skills required to meet the mandate (e.g.,
conducting functional behavioral assessments and designing behavioral intervention programs).
These conditions and challenges inhibit systemic supports and processes and
interfere with sufficient and sustained
provision of effective and efficient educational programs for students with emotional and behavioral problems. One response to improving the adoption and
sustained implementation of effective
practices involves a careful consideration
of both the host environment (Zins &
Ponti, 1990) in which those practices are
being considered and the manner and degree to which planning among key stakeholders is conducted. Such systemschange consideration reflects the intimate
connection of PBIS and wraparound
adoption across domains and stakeholders (Hienemann & Dunlap, 2001; Knoster, Villa, & Thousand, 2000). Such systemic adoption of best practices is
consistent with the positions being advocated by various professional and parent
advocacy organizations (see, e.g., Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorders, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
DEFINING AND DESCRIBING
WRAPAROUND
The wraparound process has emerged
from the concept known as system of care,
which is a community-based approach to
providing comprehensive, integrated services through multiple professionals and
agencies and in collaboration with families (Stroul & Freidman, 1986). There
has been a proliferation of demonstration
projects and systems-change initiatives
that attempt to create (a) collaborative systems in local communities across the
United States and (b) positive change for
these children, youth, and their families
(Burns & Goldman, 1999; Hoagwood,
1997; Stroul, 1993). Wraparound, an innovative approach for implementing individualized, comprehensive services within
a system of care, has developed as a
promising practice for improving out10,
NO.
3
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 173
comes for children and youth with EBD
and their families (Burns & Goldman;
Eber et al., 1996; Malloy et al., 1998).
Wraparound is a philosophy of care
with a defined planning process for creating a unique plan for a child and family that is designed to achieve a set of
outcomes that reflect their voices and
choices (Burns & Goldman, 1999). Wraparound incorporates a family-centered
and strength-based philosophy of care to
guide service planning for students with
EBD and their families. It involves all services and strategies necessary to meet the
individual needs of students and their families. The child, family members, and their
team of natural support and professional
providers define the needs and collectively shape and create the supports, services, and interventions linked to agreedupon outcomes. The 10 elements of
wraparound considered to be essential to
the process are listed in Table 1.
Although primarily initiated through
mental health or child welfare systems,
the direct application of wraparound in
schools has led to reports of improved
outcomes for students with EBD in a variety of educational settings, including
general education classrooms (Eber, 1996;
Eber & Nelson, 1997). Application through
community-based transitional programs
for young adults has increased rates of
school completion, career focus, job performance, and other postschool indicators
(Malloy et al., 1998).
Wraparound is not a service or a set of
services; it is a planning process. This
process is used to build consensus within
a team of professionals, family members,
and natural support providers to improve
the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of supports and services developed
for children and their families. This interagency process emphasizes strengthbased interventions that blend the perspectives of all involved persons to ensure
success across life domains and settings.
Careful monitoring of implementation
and outcomes is an integral part of the
process.
The wraparound process brings teachers, families, and community representatives together to commit unconditionally
to a way of conducting problem solving
JOURNAL
OF
TABLE 1
Elements of Wraparound
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Community based
Individualized and strength based
Culturally competent
Families as full and active partners
Team-based process involving family, child, natural supports, agencies, and community
supports
Flexible approach and funding
Balance of formal and informal community and family resources
Unconditional commitment
Development and implementation of an individualized service/support plan based on a
community/neighborhood, interagency, collaborative process
Outcomes determined and measured through the team process
Note. Based on data from Burns and Goldman (1999).
and planning that gives equal importance
and support to the child and his or her family, teachers, and other caregivers. A key
element is blending perspectives to
achieve consensus on specific and individualized desired outcomes (e.g., improved academic and behavioral results,
greater capacity for family participation,
enhanced school–home transitions). In
addition, the supports that family members and educators need to effectively implement interventions for the child also
must be considered. Fundamental to this
process is incorporating a strengths perspective that bases the selection and implementation of all interventions, supports, and services on the needs and
outcomes identified by the family, child,
and teacher (e.g., social behavior gains,
personal goals, academic performance,
positive and cohesive family activities,
extracurricular and/or work opportunities). Therefore, behavior support planning is initiated from student and family personal, interpersonal, and academic
strengths rather than from their weaknesses, deficits, and problem behaviors.
Instead of being told what services and
supports professionals will provide, the
family members and the child are asked
to indicate their strengths and prioritize
their needs. They will select team members who they feel can support and assist
them in achieving their goals. Once commitment and consensus regarding roles,
strengths, and needs are established, team
EMOTIONAL
AND
B E H AV I O R A L
members engage in a process that results
in carefully designed interventions that
are directly linked to clearly stated outcomes. For children and families, supports and services might include respite;
mentoring; peer supports; parent partners;
or basic assistance in such areas as housing, transportation, job assistance, childcare, or health and safety. For schools,
supports and services in wraparound
plans can address quality programming
and legal/compliance issues that may include functional behavioral assessment;
instructional accommodations for strengthbased academic, behavioral, and social
skills; and consultation and supports for
teachers. These services may be provided
by school-based personnel or on an asneeded basis by other qualified persons or
agencies identified by the team.
An effective child–family wraparound
team is prepared to step outside of the box
of the usual categorical service options to
create or reorganize services based on
unique needs and circumstances. Combining natural supports (e.g., childcare,
transportation, mentors, parent-to-parent
network) with interventions (e.g., behavioral strategies, social skills instruction,
reading instruction, therapy, medication)
can lead to more effective outcomes. Wraparound planning has resulted in decreasing the numbers of out-of-home and
restrictive school placements while at
the same time improving behavioral, academic, social, and postschool adjustment
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
10,
NO.
3
173
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 174
indicators for students with EBD (Bruns
et al., 1995; Burns et al., 2000; Eber et al.,
1996; Eber & Nelson, 1997; Malloy et al.,
1998).
WRAPAROUND IN SCHOOLS
The wraparound process can be integrated
into school-based planning for students
with special needs regardless of the type
of special education label or multiagency
involvement (Eber & Nelson, 1997). Although wraparound originally was initiated for those students with the most
chronic and intensive emotional and behavioral needs (Burchard, Burchard, Sewell, & VanDenBerg, 1993; VanDenBerg
& Grealish, 1996), many schools and
communities also have begun integrating this approach with students whose
schools have recognized them as being at
risk for chronic problems (Burns et al.,
2000; Eber, 1998). This includes students
who may not have come to the attention
of mental health, juvenile justice, or other
community agencies but for whom the
school and/or family have recognized that
such attention is likely if effective interventions are not provided. For these
students, elements of the wraparound process are integrated into prevention planning (i.e., student support teams or teacher
assistance teams) or through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process.
School systems also are applying the
wraparound process directly through special education for students with the most
intensive and complex needs, which particularly means students with EBD (Eber,
1996, 1998; Eber & Nelson, 1997). Bringing family members, friends, and other
natural support persons together with
teachers, behavior specialists, and other
professionals involved with the student
and family is essential to the planning
process because teams must combine the
supports and services directed toward reducing risk factors (Walker & Sprague,
1999) with effective clinical, medical, behavioral, and instructional strategies. In
this manner, the wraparound process creates a team context within which effective
behavioral and instructional strategies are
more likely to occur.
174
JOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
AND
Effective wraparound planning requires skilled facilitation of the planning
process within the child–family team.
Schools can provide such facilitation for
greater numbers of students because
they have characteristics not available
in other community agencies. For example, schools have (a) structures and routines for daily contact with children and
regular interactions with their families;
(b) broad-based support services (e.g.,
nursing, psychological/counseling, academic remediation); (c) formalized individualized educational planning through
special education; (d) integrated learning
opportunities; and (e) multiple opportunities for exposure and interactions with
positive peer and adult role models. The
wraparound process is applied in schools
to increase the family/child voice in the
design of school-based interventions and
to achieve better outcomes across settings
(Eber, 1999). In addition, from a policy
and legal perspective, schools are being
called upon to provide these interventions
as a part of the related services that must
be provided by schools if they are determined to be needed for a student to receive
an appropriate program (Maag & Katsiyannis, 1996).
CONNECTIONS WITH SPECIAL
EDUCATION AND THE IEP
The wraparound process is consistent
with the values and mandates of the original special education law (Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) as
well as the reauthorized version, IDEA
(Skiba & Peterson, 2000; C. Smith, 2000).
Wraparound can be used to guide the development of effective IEPs that reflect
the family’s voice and include outcomebased supports, services, and interventions (Eber & Nelson, 1997). In fact, use
of this strength-based process has helped
teams move from placement-driven discussions, often filled with conflict and
blame placing among schools, agencies,
and families, to productive problemsolving sessions where families, teachers,
and students are heard and supported.
School-based wraparound planning guides
the implementation of interventions that
develop and support academic and behavB E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
ioral skills needed for students to succeed
at school, at home, and in the community.
Furthermore, intervention integrity, described by C. Smith as the degree to which
an IEP team can develop interventions
that are calculated to provide meaningful
benefit for a student being served, would
be more likely to emerge from such a
process.
School-based wraparound planning
creates access for more family and community supports that can enhance the effectiveness of academic and behavioral
interventions for students with EBD. Team
attention to teacher concerns and needs results in a greater willingness by teachers
to problem-solve with other professionals
and with families. In addition to the discipline provisions of IDEA ’97 delineated
previously, the IEP provisions of these
amendments specify that under “special
considerations,” if a student’s behavior is
interfering with his or her learning or the
learning of others, the IEP team will consider the use of positive behavioral supports needed to address such behavior
(see, e.g., Turnbull, Wilcox, Stowe, &
Turnbull, 2001). Our experiences suggest
that careful implementation of the wraparound process creates a context for effective implementation of research-based
behavioral, instructional, and clinical interventions while meeting our legal and
procedural duties as educators.
Although wraparound is consistent
with the intent of the IEP process, implementation differences have occurred as
the IEP process has evolved with a mandate focus over the past 30 years. Wraparound teams include individuals other
than mandated special education personnel. Natural support persons, community
representatives, and individuals who have
positive relationships with the student and
family are sought as members. Wraparound plans go beyond the IEP itself to
include supports and services for home
and community settings, many of which
do not need to be included in the actual
IEP document. Wraparound plans are designed to fit an individual student’s unique
needs as opposed to fitting a student to a
program (Eber & Nelson, 1997). This individualization includes identifying, accessing, and creating resources and strate10,
NO.
3
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 175
gies to enhance the school’s capacity to effectively educate the student. Pinpointing
effective instructional and behavioral interventions and comprehensive support
plans for students and teachers is essential.
Application of the wraparound process
requires professionals and family members to think differently about each other
and about the needs of a student with
EBD. Instead of focusing on where the
student will be placed or what consequences he or she will receive for inappropriate behavior, the team problemsolves concerning needs identified by the
family, the student, and the student’s
teacher (e.g., having friends, learning to
read, staying in school). When the teacher
and family define these needs, the supports and services associated with the
selected interventions will be practical
and accepted (Eber, 1999). Supported by
skilled education staff members, the
team proceeds with the identification and
application of strategies that will be effective in producing positive social and
academic skills (Eber, 1999). When the
voices of those who spend the most time
with the student are heard and united,
realistic and creative problem solving,
positive school–family relationships, and
the design of effective interventions are
facilitated. The family and child should
feel it is their team and their plan.
SCHOOL FEATURES THAT
SUPPORT WRAPAROUND
The wraparound process organizes and
supports programming for students with
EBD and for those who are at risk for
significant problem behaviors and their
families. Wraparound represents only one
aspect of a comprehensive system of positive behavior support in schools, however. Increased concerns about school
safety have broadened the focus beyond
students who have been identified as having EBD, forcing educators to look closely
at how behavior is related to contexts and
conditions in the larger school environment. Prevention of and early intervention
for EBD are now recognized as critical
needs in schools (Sprague & Walker,
JOURNAL
OF
2000; Walker et al., 1996). Professionals
and parents realize that strategies such as
conducting functional behavioral assessments or designing and implementing behavioral intervention programs should be
considered long before a student is facing
major disciplinary actions by school officials (Iowa Department of Education,
1998). As with the systems changes in
mental health and child welfare, general
and special educators are recognizing the
need to adopt a proactive systems approach toward student behavior. Reactive
and punitive discipline systems are not
achieving positive results, and more educators and other professionals are seeing
the need for system-wide approaches that
will produce the prosocial behaviors required for safer school environments
(Council for Exceptional Children, 1999;
Sugai & Horner, 1999–2000).
Recently, educators have been encouraged to conceptualize and apply a continuum of positive behavior interventions
across all students in a school (Kerr &
Nelson, 1998; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Scott
& Nelson, 1999b; Sugai & Horner, 1999–
2000; Walker et al., 1996). This continuum illustrates the need to combine the
technology of effective behavior change
with interagency collaborative approaches
to meet the needs of all children and youth.
Building on Zins and Ponti’s (1990) concept of effective “host environments,”
Sugai and colleagues (Sugai et al., 2000)
proposed that interventions for students
with the most complex needs be enhanced
by building consistent structures for organizing and applying effective behavior interventions throughout school environments. Figure 1 illustrates this continuum
of PBIS and the features of the three-tiered
approach, which is based on the following assumptions:
• A majority (approximately 80%–
90%) of students in schools will not
demonstrate serious problem behavior
if a well-defined, consistent, researchbased, and universal system of positive behavior support is implemented
throughout the school (Colvin,
Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Lewis &
Sugai, 1999). These school-wide discipline systems emphasize the identiEMOTIONAL
AND
B E H AV I O R A L
fication and description of expected
behaviors for all students and include
strategies that adults use to teach and
encourage prosocial skills in the
school. In addition, a continuum of
procedures to discourage rule violations and formatively monitor the effectiveness of the school-wide system
are put in place.
• Targeted interventions are designed
for the relatively small number (approximately 5%–15%) of students
who do not respond to the universal
approaches. These interventions are
more specialized and intensive but are
administered individually or in small
groups (Sprague, Sugai, & Walker,
1998). Moreover, these elements incorporate aspects of the wraparound
process, including (a) functional
assessment–based behavior support
planning that considers the strengths
and needs of the student and his or her
family, and the teaching and positive
reinforcement of prosocial behaviors
to replace problem behavior; (b) behavioral and academic interventions
that include supports for the student’s
caregivers in the school, home, or
community; and (c) collaboration with
mental health or community agencies
on targeted interventions for students
and their families at the first indication of need.
• Students who have chronic and intensive emotional and behavior problems
(approximately 1%–7%) warrant a
comprehensive plan covering the
home, the school, and the community.
Intervention and support features are
similar to those in targeted interventions, but they are more individualized, are of higher intensity, and involve more comprehensive planning
and interventions. A family-centered
team that is unique to each student ensures that the family and student are
heard and that consensus is achieved
regarding needs and outcomes. Careful analysis of the student’s unique
needs in life domains (e.g., safety,
medical, social, psychological, familial, vocational) drive the planning
process. Effective behavioral and academic interventions also represent an
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
10,
NO.
3
175
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 176
FIGURE 1. Continuum of positive behavior interventions and supports.
important part of comprehensive
wraparound plans for these students.
This concept of a continuum of behavior support offers a context for understanding how wraparound and PBIS are
connected in schools. The emphasis is on
(a) a positive, proactive continuum of positive behavior supports; (b) more intensive, specialized, and individualized interventions as problem behaviors and needs
intensify; (c) a family-centered, teambased planning process; and (d) comprehensive planning that considers the
strengths and needs of the student, the
family, the teacher, and other natural support caregivers. The goal is to increase the
impact of academic and behavioral interventions by improving the effectiveness,
efficiency, and relevance of behavior support planning that considers the student
and his or her family’s strengths and risk
factors. Walker and Sprague (1999) advocated connecting wraparound approaches
and positive behavior strategies to improve and sustain outcomes:
Altering a student’s life course usually requires that a risk factor’s approach be used
that leads to a comprehensive intervention
176
JOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
AND
involving caregivers, teachers, and peers at
a minimum. To divert students at risk for
BD from an at-risk life path, it is essential
that key social agents in students’ lives be
directly involved in the intervention, due to
the complexity and spillover factors that
characterize students with BD. (p. 336)
WRAPAROUND PROCESS
FEATURES WITHIN
SCHOOL-WIDE PBIS
Although dynamic and individualized, the
wraparound process has defined features
and processes. In this section, we briefly
discuss the steps in the wraparound
process and describe guidelines that improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and
relevance of the process outcomes.
Wraparound Process Steps
The wraparound planning process has
been described as a series of steps that are
conducted by a team unique to an individual child and family. To maximize outcomes, these steps should be carefully
followed, written plans developed and implemented, and effectiveness monitored
on an ongoing basis.
B E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
Step 1: Engage in Initial Conversations. Before conducting a wraparound
team meeting, the first step is to engage
family members and members of their
natural support network in individual conversations about their ideas, frustrations,
views, values, and dreams regarding the
child in question. This step is important
not only for creating trusting relationships
and establishing a consensus-building
environment but also for collecting information used to design effective interventions. During these individual conversations, the team facilitator can encourage
family members and teachers to describe
their past and current efforts and successes, share their concerns and frustrations, explain their goal for their role with
the student, and identify the strengths of
the family and other members of the student’s support network. One of the most
important outcomes of these initial conversations is to identify information (e.g.,
strengths, needs, behavioral data, concerns of family) used to design interventions that directly address outcomes in
major life domains (e.g., academic, behavioral, personal, vocational) across home,
school, and community contexts. Other
outcomes are to establish trust and rapport
and solicit involvement in a strengthbased team process.
Step 2: Start the Meeting with
Strengths. The initial meeting begins
with a summary of the strengths identified
during the initial conversations. The facilitator ensures that different perspectives of the child’s strengths (i.e., teacher,
student, family) are addressed across multiple life domains (i.e., social, educational, physical). Describing the strengths
of the family, the teachers, and other providers is also encouraged. All strengths
should be stated in specific and functional
terms (e.g., likes to help younger kids in
wheelchairs in the hallway) as opposed to
a list of adjectives (e.g., nice kid). The
strengths profile should be reviewed and
updated at all subsequent meetings.
Step 3: Develop a Mission Statement.
A mission statement is a clear, concise description of why this team exists. It should
be agreed upon by all the team members
10,
NO.
3
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 177
who may have an active role with the student. This simple statement should guide
the team’s actions to ensure that activities
are connected to the mission. The following is an example of a mission statement:
“The student will live at home and succeed at school.”
Step 4: Identify Needs Across Domains. Based on information obtained
during initial conversations, the team
summarizes all the needs of the student
and his or her family across the life domains. The facilitator guides the team toward normalized needs or replacement
behaviors with questions such as, “What
does this student need to be more like a
student who is doing OK in our school and
community?” The student, family members, and the teacher are encouraged to express all the needs they believe must be
met for the student to succeed.
take ownership of the intervention design. Facilitators must ask team members
whether the proposed action will work for
them. Teams must take the time to confirm commitment to task completion and
to ensure common understanding of the
intervention’s procedures by those committed to implementation.
Step 8: Document the Plan: Evaluate, Refine, Monitor, and Transition. A
clear consensus regarding needs, strategies, and outcomes sets the context for a
defined team evaluation/monitoring process. Each meeting should begin with a review and progress rating of actions defined at the previous meeting. If a need has
not been met to the team’s satisfaction, refining, redesigning, or reevaluating available data should take place.
Integration Guidelines
Step 5: Prioritize Needs. The facilitator guides the team to consensus regarding which specific needs the team will
strategize about at the current meeting and
which needs will be addressed at subsequent meetings. The individuals who
spend the most time with the student or
have the most responsibility for him or her
(e.g., family members, teachers) should
have the primary role in determining the
priority of needs.
Step 6: Develop Actions. The team
develops specific strategies for meeting
needs and clearly defined outcomes. The
team must decide which needs are ready
for immediate action and which require
additional information. Initial actions may
then address gathering additional information (e.g., conducting functional or
reading assessments) so that interventions
may be designed. For other need areas, the
team may have enough information to immediately move to action planning (e.g.,
creating a daily communication strategy
between home and school, obtaining transportation to medical appointments, selecting specific instructional interventions).
Step 7: Assign Tasks/Solicit Commitments. The person or persons responsible for implementing given actions should
JOURNAL
OF
Effective wraparound plans are the byproduct of effective child/family teams
and effective and efficient meetings, and
they can blend easily with PBIS practices
and systems. Attending to the following
guidelines can maximize the outcomes of
the wraparound process and the extent to
which the wraparound process and PBIS
practices and systems are integrated.
Use a Highly Trained Facilitator. If
the wraparound process is to be successful, someone must be responsible for
ensuring that the team process is conducted efficiently and effectively. Potential school-based PBIS facilitators are
individuals who have responsibility for
leading IEP teams and intervention planning for students with or at risk for EBD
(e.g., social workers, psychologists, intervention specialists, team leaders) and who
may possess many of the skills needed for
effective wraparound facilitation. These
required skills include (a) recognizing
and blending differences in perspectives
among team members; (b) guiding consensus and problem solving; (c) recognizing antecedents, setting events, and
replacement behaviors for problem behaviors; (d) accessing needed services and
persons skilled in providing the appropriEMOTIONAL
AND
B E H AV I O R A L
ate interventions and supports; (e) ensuring that all team members have a participatory role in the process; and (f) linking
all supports, services, and interventions to
outcomes and guiding the team in monitoring effectiveness over time.
Focus on Strengths, Needs, and Perspectives. Similar to the function-based
approach for the behavior support planning process (Sugai & Horner, 1999–
2000; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & HaganBurke, 1999–2000; Todd, Horner, Sugai,
& Sprague, 1999), effective wraparound
plans are the result of a teaming process
that maintains a focus on strengths as a
means of addressing needs. Hearing each
other’s perspectives fosters active participation and team ownership; considers the
constraints that each member of the team
brings to the conversation (either personally or because of their agency/job role);
creates a safe environment in which team
members are able to express concerns;
and collaboratively develops solutions
that are designed to meet student, family,
and teacher needs across situations and
settings.
Prepare for Team Meetings. Before
conducting wraparound team meetings,
facilitators should review information obtained during initial conversations so that
a productive and efficient planning meeting can take place. Similarities and differences in perspectives should be identified and organized so that at the meeting
team members can be assured that their
concerns have been heard, thus necessitating less time to reach consensus.
School-wide PBIS leadership teams and
behavior support planning meetings function in a similar way.
Develop Comprehensive Plans. Like
the features of functional-based behavior
support plans, effective wraparound plans
include uniquely designed supports, services, and interventions for the student
and other members of the wraparound
team. These plans are designed to address
a broad range of needs that may include
access to clothes or transportation, supports for caregivers (e.g., respite, assis-
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
10,
NO.
3
177
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 178
tance with obtaining a job), peer supports
to enhance friendships, specialized academic instruction, and function-based behavior support plans or clinical interventions. Effective wraparound plans include
strategies that (a) modify the physical
context (e.g., schedules, routines, supervision); (b) support skill development
(i.e., instructional strategies designed to
teach, practice, and reinforce adaptive
skills and behaviors; (c) enhance and build
on student strengths; (d) improve access
to resources; (e) enhance processes for
handling information and problem solving; and (f) enhance team members’ capacity to anticipate, prevent, and respond
to safety needs and emergency situations.
Adhere to the Value Base During Implementation. Wraparound is grounded
in a set of values that include family voice
and choice, unconditional commitment,
flexibility, and cultural competence (Burns
& Goldman, 1999; VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996). These are similar to the
person-centered values Carr and his colleagues (2002) described as related to the
applied science of positive behavior supports. The team involved in a wraparound
process adheres to this humanistic value
base by listening to the individuals who
are most involved in the lives of the student without assigning blame and by
building new partnerships that are effective, efficient, and relevant. This effort
may require that traditional agency boundaries be remapped, preconceived notions
of blame put aside, prior ways of doing
business discontinued, or divergent perspectives given serious consideration.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR
PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
Although the joining of the wraparound
process and the PBIS approach have logical appeal and programmatic support, research evidence is needed to enhance our
understanding of their implementation
features and requirements. As Kauffman
(1999a) stated regarding the role of science
in the education of students with EBD,
more research is needed before we can
confidently say that the wraparound process and PBIS approach are scientifically
178
JOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
AND
supported and rule-governed approaches
to solving problems. Although research
studies are needed to test and confirm the
effectiveness and efficiency of the wraparound process, program evaluation data
at national, state, and local levels offer
strong indications that wraparound is a
promising process, and guidelines for effective implementation, training, and
evaluation are surfacing (Burchard et al.,
1993; Burns & Goldman, 1999; Burns et
al., 2000; Eber, 1996, 1998; Stroul, 1993).
The PBIS approach offers a systems
framework (host environment) that is designed to support the adoption and sustained use of research-validated practices
(Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner,
1999–2000) for all students, but especially those with or at risk for challenging
behavior. The PBIS approach provides
an integration of (a) behavioral science,
(b) practical, function-based interventions, (c) social values, and (d) systems
perspective (Sugai et al., 1999). Like
wraparound, more research is needed to
confirm the effectiveness and efficiency
with which PBIS provides positive behavioral support to all students in a school.
Supporting the integration of wraparound and PBIS is easy in one regard because they share many similarities (e.g.,
individualized behavior support planning
for students and their families; use of
effective academic and social behavior
interventions; team-based planning and
problem solving; a proactive, outcomedriven perspective). In addition, wraparound and PBIS are most effective when
used together. Wraparound offers an emphasis on coordinated interagency supports and services, family voice, and
blended perspectives. The PBIS approach
contributes a functional assessment–
based approach to behavior support planning, a school-wide implementation of
positive behavior support, and a databased emphasis to intervention monitoring and evaluation. Empirical support for
the integration of these two still is needed
to improve the efficiency, effectiveness,
and relevance of supports and services
provided to students with or at risk for
EBD and their families.
Future research efforts must answer a
number of important questions. First, alB E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
though we know which practices for educating students with EBD are research
supported and most likely to have a positive effect (Peacock Hill Working Group,
1991; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995),
we do not have a clear understanding as
to why schools often do not adopt and sustain their use (Latham, 1988; Walker et al.,
1996). Second, a systems approach clearly
is required to ensure the sustained adoption and use of effective practices; however, the precise nature of the features that
compose effective and efficient systems
has not been verified scientifically. Again,
the PBIS approach offers a useful place
for defining the features of a systems approach. Third, although we know that a
proactive, instructional approach is preferred, we do not understand why schools
maintain an overreliance on negative interactions, exclusion, and punishment to
address antisocial behavior (Nelson,
1997; Shores & Wehby, 1999; Simpson,
1999). We need to identify which factors
cause educators to adopt ineffective practices, why a concerted focus on prevention is difficult to achieve (Kauffman,
1999b; Scott & Nelson, 1999a; Walker
et al., 1996), and what needs to be done to
ensure consistent use of effective interventions. Finally, we do not understand
why collaborative systems of care that
have been initiated by mental health and
child welfare systems have been slow to
include schools as equal partners (Eber,
1998; Eber & Nelson, 1997; Lourie,
1994). In this case, the unit of analysis is
not students but the adults who are members of these systems of care.
About the Authors
LUCILLE EBER, EdD, is currently the
statewide coordinator of the Illinois Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) and
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
Network. Her areas of interest and expertise
include program development, evaluation, and
training and technical assistance on systemic application of wraparound and PBIS in
schools. GEORGE SUGAI, PhD, is a professor of special education in the College of
Education at the University of Oregon. He is
currently co-director of the Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports at the
university. His areas of expertise include be10,
NO.
3
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 179
havior management, school-wide discipline
and positive behavior support, functional
assessment–based behavior support planning,
and education of students with EBD. CARL
R. SMITH, PhD, is on the faculty at Drake
University in Des Moines, Iowa, and is director of the Resource Center for Issues in Special Education. His work has primarily focused
on policy and legal issues affecting students
with behavioral disorders. TERRANCE M.
SCOTT, PhD, is an assistant professor in the
Department of Special Education at the University of Florida in Gainesville. His research
interests include logical and realistic applications of school-wide behavior support systems, functional assessment, and behavior intervention planning. Address: Lucille Eber,
ISBE EBD/PBIS Network, 160 Ridgewood
Ave., #121, Riverside, IL 60546; e-mail:
lewrapil@aol.com
Authors’ Note
The preparation of this article was supported
in part by the Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (U.S. Department of
Education Grant H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S.
Department of Education, and such endorsements should not be inferred.
References
Bruns, E., Burchard, J., & Yoe, J. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont system of care: Outcomes associated with community-based
wraparound services. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 4, 321–339.
Burchard, J., Burchard, S., Sewell, C., & VanDenBerg, J. (1993). One kid at a time: Evaluative case studies and description of the
Alaska initiative demonstration project.
Juneau: State of Alaska Division of Mental
Health and Mental Retardation.
Burns, B. J., & Goldman, S. K. (Eds.). (1999).
Promising practices in wraparound for children with serious emotional disturbance
and their families (1998 Series, Vol. 4).
Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institute
for Research.
Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard,
J. D., Faw, L., & Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions
for youth with severe emotional disorders:
Multisystemic therapy and the wraparound
process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 283–314.
JOURNAL
OF
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel,
R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., et al.
(2002). Positive behavior supports: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 4–16.
Carson, R. R., Sitlington, P. L., & Frank, A. R.
(1995). Young adulthood for individuals
with behavioral disorders: What does it
hold? Behavioral Disorders, 20, 127–135.
Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorders. (1998). School
discipline. (Available from National Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorders, 8181 Professional
Place, Suite 201, Landover, MD 20785)
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2000). Handle
with care: Serving the mental health needs
of young offenders. Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice.
Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G.
(1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration
and management of students with behavior
problems in general education. Education
and Treatment of Children, 16, 361–381.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1999, Winter). Positive behavioral support. Research
Connections in Special Education, No. 4,
pp. 1–8.
Eber, L. (1996). Restructuring schools through
wraparound approach: The LADSE experience. In R. J. Illback & C. M. Nelson (Eds.),
School-based services for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders (pp.
139–154). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Eber, L. (1997). Improving school-based behavioral interventions through use of the
wraparound process. Journal of Reaching
Today’s Youth, 1(2), 32–36.
Eber, L. (1998). What’s happening in the
schools? Education’s experience with systems of care. Washington, DC: Washington
Business Group on Health.
Eber, L. (1999). Family voice, teacher voice:
Finding common ground through the wraparound process. Claiming Children. (Available from The Federation of Families for
Children’s Mental Health, Alexandria, VA.)
Eber, L., & Nelson, C. M. (1997). Integrating
services for students with emotional and behavioral needs through school-based wraparound planning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 385–395.
Eber, L., Nelson, C. M., & Miles, P. (1997).
School-based wraparound for students with
emotional and behavioral challenges. Exceptional Children, 63, 539–555.
Eber, L., Rolf, K., & Schreiber, M. P. (1996).
A look at the 5-year ISBE EBD Initiative:
End of the year report for 1995–96. LaEMOTIONAL
AND
B E H AV I O R A L
Grange, IL: LaGrange Area Department of
Special Education.
Hienemann, M., & Dunlap. G. (2001). Factors
affecting the outcomes of community-based
behavioral support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 75–82.
Hoagwood, K. (1997). The Fort Bragg experiment: A comparative success or failure?
American Psychologist, 52, 546–550.
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (1999). Discipline and
behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls and
promises. Effective School Practices, 17(4),
10–22.
Iowa Department of Education. (1998). Definitions and essential elements: Student discipline provisions of the Individuals with
Disabilities Act of 1997. Des Moines: Author.
Kauffman, J. M. (1999a). The role of science
in behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 265–272.
Kauffman, J. M. (1999b). How we prevent the
prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 65, 448–468.
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1998 ). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the
classroom (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990).
At the schoolhouse door. New York: Bank
Street College of Education.
Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000).
A framework for thinking about systems
change. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.),
Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93–
128). Baltimore: Brookes.
Koyanagi, C., & Gaines, S. (1993). All systems
failure: An examination of the results of neglecting the needs of children with serious
emotional disturbance. Washington, DC:
National Institute for Mental Health and the
Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health.
Latham, G. (1988). The birth and death cycles
of educational innovations. Principal, 68(1),
41–43.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to
proactive schoolwide management. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24.
Lourie, I. (1994). Principles of local system development for children, adolescents, and
their families. Chicago: Kaleidoscope.
Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (1996). Counseling as a related service for students with
emotional or behavioral disorders: Issues
and recommendations. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 293–305.
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
10,
NO.
3
179
jebd-v10n3-p171
7/31/02
4:08 PM
Page 180
Malloy, J., Cheney, D., & Cormier, G. (1998).
Interagency collaboration and the transition
to adulthood for students with emotional or
behavioral disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 1, 303–320.
Nelson, C. M. (1997). Aggressive and violent
behavior: A personal perspective. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 250–
262.
Nelson, C. M., & Pearson, C. A. (1994). Juvenile delinquency in the context of culture
and community. In R. L. Peterson & S. IshiiJordan (Eds.), Cultural and community contexts for emotional or behavioral disorders
(pp. 78–90). Boston: Brookline Press.
Peacock Hill Working Group. (1991). Problems and promises in special education and
related services for children and youth with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 299–313.
Schorr, L. B., & Julius, W. (1998). Common
purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York:
Anchor/Doubleday.
Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999a). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications
for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249–252.
Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999b). Universal school discipline strategies: Facilitating learning environments. Effective School
Practices, 17(4), 54–64.
Shores, R. E., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). Analyzing the classroom and social behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 7, 194–199.
Simpson, R. (1999). Children and youth with
emotional and behavioral disorders: A concerned look at the present and a hopeful eye
for the future. Behavioral Disorders, 24,
284–292.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School
discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335–347.
Smith, C. (2000). Behavioral and discipline
provisions of IDEA ’97: Implicit compe-
180
JOURNAL
OF
EMOTIONAL
AND
tencies yet to be confirmed. Exceptional
Children, 66, 403–412.
Smith, S. W., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997).
Achieving the goals of the national agenda:
Progress and prospects. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 2–5.
Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998).
Antisocial behavior in schools. In S. Watson
& F. Gresham (Eds.), Child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 451–
474). New York: Plenum Press.
Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent behavior. Exceptional
Children, 66, 367–379.
Stroul, B. A. (1993, September). Systems of
care for children and adolescents with severe emotional disturbances: What are the
results? Washington, DC: CASSP Technical Assistance Center, Center for Child Health
and Mental Health Policy, and Georgetown
University Child Development Center.
Stroul, B. A., & Freidman, R. (1986). A system
of care for severely emotionally disturbed
children and youth. Washington, DC:
CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999–2000). Including the functional behavioral assessment technology in schools. Exceptionality,
8, 145–148.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., et al.
(2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment
in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Support, 2, 131–143.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J.
(1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning: Research-topractice-to-research. Behavioral Disorders,
24, 223–227.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke,
S. (1999–2000). Overview of the functional
behavioral assessment process. Exceptionality, 8, 149–160.
B E H AV I O R A L
DISORDERS,
FALL
2002,
VOL.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., &
Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office referrals to assess
and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–101.
Todd, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G.
(1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School
Practices, 17(4), 72–82.
Turnbull, H. R., Wilcox, B. L., Stowe, M., &
Turnbull, A. P. (2001). IDEA requirements
for use of PBS: Guidelines for responsible
agencies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 3–10.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA: The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:
USGPO.
VanDenBerg, J. E., & Grealish, E. M. (1996).
Individualized services and supports through
the wraparound process: Philosophy and
procedures. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 5 (1), 7–21.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995).
Antisocial behavior in public schools:
Strategies & best practices. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brookes/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufmann, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches
to preventing antisocial behavior patterns
among school-aged children and youth.
Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 4, 194–209.
Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Longitudinal research and functional behavior
assessment issues. Behavioral Disorders,
24, 335–337.
Zins, J. E., & Ponti, C. R. (1990). Best practices in school-based consultation. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices
in school psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 673–694).
Washington, DC: National Association of
School Psychologists.
10,
NO.
3
Copyright of Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.