When students with significant behavioral challenges do not receive adequate intervention, the costs can be astronomical. Not only do unaddressed behavior problems lead to negative individual, family, and educational outcomes such as poor achievement and dropping out, but they also lead to significant financial costs to society (Predy, McIntosh, & Frank, 2014). Consider this: “the monetary value of individually supporting one child at risk of challenging behavior from birth to adulthood is between $2.6 and $4.4 million but increases to over $5.8 million if intervention begins after age 14 years” (Cohen & Piquero, 2009).

The good news is that thousands of schools across the country are proactively addressing behavior and social emotional learning by taking advantage of a framework that utilizes a multi-tiered system of support, called PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports), to create and maintain a safe and effective learning environment. The term “multi-tiered system of support” refers to the different tiers of intervention that are provided to students who need it, when they need it. Tier 1 includes evidenced-based core instruction that all students receive. Tier 2 includes supplemental instruction and intervention with ongoing progress monitoring for students who are at-risk and not responding to Tier 1 supports (about 10-15% of the student population). Tier 3 is reserved for 3-5% of students who do not respond to Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions and require intensive, individualized interventions (Pool, Carter, & Johnson, 2012).

Tier 2 interventions are essential, yet underutilized.  When implemented, students who are at-risk for developing more severe, high-risk behavior receive support early, thus preventing more serious problems that require high-intensity, high-resource interventions such as an individualized behavior intervention plan based on a functional behavior assessment (Wolfe, Pyle, Charlton, Sabey, Lund, & Ross, 2016).

The most widely implemented Tier 2 intervention is Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004). CICO is designed to reduce mild problem behavior and increase classroom engagement (Wolfe et al., 2016). When implemented with fidelity, CICO has led to decreases in office discipline referrals, increases in teacher ratings of appropriate behavior, and reductions in problem behavior (Miller, Dufrene, Sterling, Olmi, & Bachmayer, 2015).

What exactly is CICO? Typically, a student participating in CICO checks in with a mentor every morning who briefly reviews the schoolwide expectations, sets a performance goal, and delivers a Daily Progress Report (DPR) to the student. The student solicits feedback from his/her teachers throughout the day using the DPR and then checks out with the mentor at the end of the day. During check-out, the mentor reviews the DPR, recognizes the student’s accomplishments, and delivers reinforcers. Finally, the student takes the DPR card home for caregivers to review and sign (Wolfe et al., 2016).

The feedback documented on the DPR serves as progress monitoring data and can be connected to the delivery of reinforcers. For example, if a student meets their goal of 80% of points earned for the day, then they may earn specific praise paired with a “Caught Being Good” ticket that can later be exchanged for privileges.

CICO is a great option for students who find adult attention reinforcing because it increases opportunities for positive interactions with adults and provides a structured process for frequent feedback on schoolwide behavioral expectations through the DPR. If a student responds positively to the CICO intervention, the team may determine that the next step is to fade the intervention so that the student can be maintained by the Tier 1 system of support. Fading typically involves providing progressively fewer feedback opportunities from teachers until they are faded completely and/or until the student transitions to a self-monitoring intervention (Miller et al., 2015).

When selecting interventions for students, schools should remember that CICO is an evidence-based intervention for students with challenging behaviors maintained by adult attention (Wolfe et al., 2016). While CICO can be modified to address other functions (e.g., obtain peer attention, escape from tasks), there has not been a sufficient number of studies yet to qualify this type of intervention as an evidence-based practice.

So the question still remains: How do schools identify the students before they develop major behaviors in order to connect them to Tier 2 interventions like CICO? School teams can use screening systems to predict which students would benefit from Tier 2 interventions (Predy et al., 2014). There are two widely used systems. One, universal social-emotional screenings, is described in the April 2017 RSE-TASC Reporter (https://rsetasc.pnwboces.org/social-emotional-screening-effectively-targeting-student-support/). The second is an approach that relies on office discipline referral “cut points.” Based on the findings of their studies, McIntosh, Frank & Spaulding (2010) and Predy et al. (2014) recommend that any student who has two or more referrals by November should receive additional support to help decrease and prevent problem behavior and increase time spent engaged in class.

Want to find out more abut CICO and other Tier 2 behavioral interventions? See the resources in our School Tool section.

References

Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25-49.

Crone D. A., Horner R. H., Hawken L. S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York, NY: Guilford

McIntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & Spaulding, S. A. (2010). Establishing research-based trajectories of office discipline referrals for individual students. School Psychology Review, 39, 380-394.

Miller, L. M., Dufrene, B. A., Sterling, H. E., Olmi, D. J., & Bachmayer, E. (2015). The effects of check-in/check-out on problem behavior and academic engagement in elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 28-38.

Predy, L., McIntosh, K., & Frank, J. L. (2014). Utility of number and type of office discipline referrals in predicting chronic problem behavior in middle schools. School Psychology Review, 43, 472-489.

Pool, J. L., Carter, D. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2012). Tier 2 team processes and decision-making in a comprehensive three-tiered model. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 232-239.

Wolfe, K., Pyle, D., Charlton, C. T., Sabey, C. V., Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2016). A systematic review of the empirical support for check-in check-out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 74-88.