Program Profile: School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)

This is a universal, school-wide prevention strategy aimed at reducing behavior problems that lead to discipline referrals and suspensions, and change perceptions of school safety. The program is rated Effective. Students in the SWPBIS schools received statistically significantly fewer school suspensions than students in schools that did not receive SWPBIS training. Perceptions of safety improved in the schools that implemented SWPBIS, but declined in the schools that did not implement SWPBIS.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

The School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is a universal, school-wide prevention program that aims to establish a social culture within schools in which students expect and support appropriate behavior from one another— and thereby create school environments that are socially predictable, consistent, safe, and positive. The primary goals of SWPBIS are to reduce problem behaviors within schools that lead to office discipline referrals and suspensions, and to change perceptions of school safety.

Target Population

SWPBIS is a universal approach that is geared toward all students within an elementary (K–5) school population.

Program Components

The SWPBIS model utilizes behavioral, social learning, and organizational behavioral principles in school settings.  Implementation of SWPBIS involves the following seven key elements:

1. At the onset of the process, a school forms a team that includes 6–10 staff members and an administrator. The team then attends annual training events provided by skilled trainers, establishes an action plan and materials for implementation, trains school staff members, and meets twice each month to discuss school-wide behavior management systems and procedures.
2. An external behavioral support coach provides consultation and technical assistance at the school.
3. Expectations for student behavior are defined in positive, easy-to-remember language and posted in classrooms and around the school. For example, “Be responsible, be safe, be respectful.”
4. Expectations for behavior are taught to all students, using lesson plans developed by the school staff. Usually, these lessons are taught at the beginning of the school year, and once each month during the remainder of the year. Some lessons may be taught outside the classroom to allow students to practice the appropriate ways to behave in the cafeteria, in the hallway, and on the bus.
5. A system is developed and used consistently throughout the school to reward students who behave appropriately. For example, some schools use “high-fives” to reinforce positive behaviors.
6. Behavioral violations are dealt with in a consistent manner across all classrooms. Everyone in the school knows what types of behaviors are dealt with in the classroom and which lead to office discipline referrals.
7. Office discipline referral data is collected in a consistent manner, and the entire staff is trained on procedures for documenting discipline problems.

Key Personnel

A team of 6–10 staff members and an administrator are required to form a SWPBIS team in the school. Ultimately, every staff member should be trained in the process, whether by skilled trainers or staff members on the SWPBIS team who attended the initial training.

Other Information

SWPBIS also includes targeted (Tier II) support for small groups or individuals exhibiting problem behavior, and tertiary (Tier III) support for students presenting more complex patterns of behavior.  However, the effectiveness of Tier II and Tier III supports are not incorporated in the studies in this review.

Study 1

Bradshaw, Mitchell, and Leaf (2010) conducted a longitudinal-group, randomized-effectiveness study of School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) using 37 public elementary schools from suburban (48 percent); urban fringe (41 percent); and rural districts in Maryland, of which 49 percent received Title I support. Between 2 and 13 schools participated from each of five districts that varied by size. After the schools were matched on demographic factors, 21 were randomized to receive SWPBIS, and 16 were assigned as comparison schools that did not receive SWPBIS. Thirty-seven schools participated in the project over 2 consecutive years.

The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) provided school-level suspension rates for the baseline year through year 4 of the study. The percentage of students suspended was calculated by dividing the total number of suspension events for a given school year by the student enrollment for that year, multiplied by 100. The researchers used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, in which a Z score was computed separately for the two conditions, to determine whether there was a significant reduction in suspension rates for the SWPBIS and comparison schools between the baseline year and year 4 of the study. Data on Office Discipline Referrals (ODR) was collected using the Internet-based School-Wide Information System; however, outcomes on ODR are not included here because ODR data was collected only from the SWPBIS schools and not from the comparison schools. 

Study 2

Horner and colleagues (2009) conducted a randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial between 2002 and 2006 with groups of elementary schools in Illinois and Hawaii. Thirty schools from each state were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control/delayed group. The schools were self-nominated by school building administrators, had not previously received training in SWPBIS, and had demonstrated state capacity to provide whole-school team building in SWPBIS. Following design adjustments, the study included 33 schools in the treatment group that received SWPBIS training at Time 1 of the study, and 30 schools in the combined control/delay group that received the training a year later, at Time 2.The only statistically significant difference between the two groups was the larger enrollment in the control/delay schools than in the treatment schools. Participating schools had an average enrollment of 471 students (ranging between 131 and 969); 61 percent non-white ethnicities (ranging between 2–100 percent); and 51 percent qualifying for free or reduced lunch (ranging between 0–99 percent).

The School Safety Survey (SSS) Risk Factor Score was used to measure the level of perceived school safety in the participating schools. The survey provides a summary rating of at least five individuals serving four varying roles within schools, including an administrator, a supervisory staff member, a classified staff member, and at least one teacher. The Risk Factor Score, an index examining design of space, crowding, perceived caring, perceived sensitivity to cultural differences, student bonding in the school, the quality of student–adult interactions, and the level of adult supervision, was used to determine the extent to which the overall school culture was perceived as a safer and more socially supportive environment. The researchers computed a partial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the effect size.

Schools interested in receiving School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) training may find their state contact information at https://www.pbis.org/about/pbis-state-coordinators. Additional information for new SWPBIS teams is available at https://www.pbis.org/pbis/getting-started.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

School-Based Interventions to Reduce Exclusion

School exclusion (more commonly known as suspension and expulsion) is broadly defined as a disciplinary measure imposed in reaction to students’ misbehavior. This practice comprises school-based programs that seek to decrease the prevalence of exclusion and thereby reduce the detrimental effects that suspensions or expulsion from schools may have on students’ learning outcomes and future training or employment opportunities. This practice is rated Effective for reducing school exclusion.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Education - Expulsion/Suspension

School-Based Interventions to Reduce Suspension and Arrest

This practice includes universal and targeted school-based interventions that aim to reduce student arrests and suspensions by helping students develop prosocial behavioral skills or improving school environment by revising school discipline practices. This practice is rated No Effects for reducing student suspensions and rated No Effects for reducing arrest rates of students.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Education - Expulsion/Suspension (Practice 128)
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types (Practice 128)

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

This practice utilizes a multi-tiered system of supports designed to make schools more effective in establishing a school culture and building a behavioral supports system to improve students’ behavioral, social, emotional, and academic outcomes. It involves three tiers of support, including both prevention and intervention efforts. The practice is rated Promising for reducing students’ problem behaviors.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Problem behavior

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?