Our Research Base

Three-Tier Model
Research by Osher et al. (2001) indicates that a coordinated, strategic, three-level approach enables school staff to address the academic, behavioral, and emotional needs of all their students and reduce problematic behavior in a proactive and culturally competent manner.

Sugai et al. found that a continuum of school-wide positive behavior supports results in:

• Change in school discipline systems
• Reduction in problem behavior
• Improved academic performance
• Savings in staff and student time
• Improved effectiveness of individual interventions
• Improved perception of school safety, mental health

The foundation of the Turnaround Model is the three-tier approach, which facilitates intense interventions for high-need students, early intervention and prevention activities for students at risk for difficulties, and school-wide prevention and support initiatives for all students.

Osher, D., Sandler, S., & Nelson, C. (Winter, 2001). The Best Approach to Safety is to Fix Schools and Support Children and Staff, New Directions in Youth Development, 92, 127-154.

Sugai, G. & Horner, R. School-wide positive behavior support. Taken from www.pbis.org.

Academic Performance and Learning Studies
Research documents that a safe and orderly school environment is highly correlated with high academic performance and that high academic performance, especially in reading and math, is a strong protective factor for children’s ongoing healthy development. [Dwyer et al. (1998), Sugai et al. (2002)]

The Turnaround Model focuses in large part on creating a calm, safe, and orderly school climate in which teachers are better able to teach and students are better able to learn (e.g., PeaceBuilders).

Wang et al. (1997) examined 28 categories of influences on learning based on 179 handbook chapters, 91 research syntheses, and surveys of 61 national experts.

Findings:

• Among the top 11 most influential categories, 8 involved social-emotional learning (e.g., student-teacher social interactions, classroom climate, peer group)
• Direct intervention in the psychological determinants of learning promise the most effective avenues of reform

The Turnaround Model utilizes both social-emotional learning curricula (e.g., PeaceBuilders, Applebaum, etc.) and direct intervention strategies (e.g., individual assessment and treatment, group counseling, etc.).

Dwyer, K., Osher, D., and Warger, C. (1998). Early Warning, Timely Response: A guide to Safe Schools. Washington, DC; U.S. Dept. of Education.

Sugai, George, Horner, Robert (2002). Behavior Psychology in the Schools; The Evolution of Discipline Practices: School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports.

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1997). Learning influences. In H.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel (eds.), Psychology and Eeducational Practice, (199-211). Berkeley: McCuthchan.

Enabling Teaching and Learning
Out of concern for poor academic performance, recent school reform initiatives in under-resourced school systems have placed a leadership focus almost exclusively on instruction and supervisory accountability for instruction under the banner of “instructional leadership.” Many educators, however, are aware that the failure to effectively address student social-emotional needs and behavioral health can have a negative impact on an entire school culture as well as instructional efficacy. As a practical matter, instructional leadership, while necessary, is not sufficient. Enabling teaching and learning are as important (with regard to leadership issues) as teaching and learning itself. Without this focus many schools will never raise academic performance. The TFC model builds a comprehensive school support structure promoting academic success for all children. [Thousand, J.S. & Villa, R.A. (1995)] The TFC approach requires planning for, and the implementation of, interdisciplinary staff development activities in two areas that enable learning to take place. The first is to train schools to appropriately identify and effectively refer and support students in need of mental health and other intensive services. The second is to train schools to develop a continuum of positive behavioral and academic supports.

Thousand, J. S. & Villa, R. A. (1995). Managing complex change toward inclusive schooling. In R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school, (51-87). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Comer, J.P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 5, 42-48.

James P. Comer, Norris M. Haynes, Edward T. Joyner and Michael Ben-Avie (Eds.). (1999). Child by child: The comer process for change in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Haynes, N.M. guest editor. (1998). Changing schools for changing times: The comer school development program. A special issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3 (1).

Mental Health and Positive Youth Development
Greenberg et al. (2001) reviewed 130 studies of universal, selected, or indicated prevention programs.

Findings:

• Reduced aggression, depression, anxiety, etc.
• Positively influenced factors associated with risk for disorders
• Interventions should be aimed at multiple domains, changing institutions and environments as well as individuals
• School ecology and climate should be a central focus
• Prevention programs need to be integrated with systems of treatment
• Multi-year programs are more likely to foster enduring benefits

The Turnaround Model utilizes universal, selected, and indicated prevention strategies. These activities are employed across multiple domains over multiple years, integrating school climate improvement strategies with individual interventions. Intense professional development strategies (e.g., Sandra Rief’s How to Reach and Teach) give teachers and support staff the tools needed to work effectively with a student population with learning and behavioral diversity.

Durlak and Wells (1997) conducted meta-analysis of 177 studies of primary prevention programs that decrease behavioral and social problems in youth.

Findings:

• Interventions reduced internalizing and externalizing disorders and enhanced competencies (e.g., assertiveness, communication skills, academic performance)
• Behavioral approaches produced larger effects than non-behavioral

The Turnaround Model focuses heavily on prevention activities that help identify and treat students with internalizing and externalizing disorders (Case-management team process).

Catalano et al. (2002) examined 161 published studies of positive youth development programs.

Findings:

• Skill building and environmental/organizational change are the most effective strategies
• Structured manuals and curricula are important to support consistency in delivery
• There is a need for more standardized measures and comprehensive frameworks

The Turnaround Model utilizes climate change and leadership building strategies. Social-emotional learning curricula are used and Turnaround is in the process of documenting and “manualizing” the implementation steps of our model.

Greenberg, M.T., Domintrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, 1-62.

Durlak, J.A., & Wells, A.M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: Ameta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115–152.

Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M.L., Ryan, J.A.M., Lonczak, H.S., & Hawkins, J.D. (2002). Positive youth development in the
United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 15.

Comer, J.P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 5, 42-48.

James P. Comer, Norris M. Haynes, Edward T. Joyner and Michael Ben-Avie (Eds.). (1999). Child by child: The comer process for change in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Haynes, N.M. guest editor. (1998). Changing schools for changing times: The comer school development program. A special issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3 (1).

The Necessity for Collaboration
Research on effective school-based interventions suggests that the most successful approaches are comprehensive, three-level approaches that involve collaborations with families and other service entities (Quinn, et al., 1998). One level involves universal interventions, which prevent problems from developing among most students while reducing risk factors for others, and creating a host environment that supports early and intensive interventions. A second level includes selective and indicated interventions for students who are at a greater level of risk. The third level involves individualized treatments for students who are at the greatest level of need (Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson, 2004).

Additionally, there is growing evidence that collaboration is necessary to improve outcomes for children with and at risk of developing emotional and behavioral disorders. Implementing this knowledge is challenging due to the cultural and structural challenges of collaboration among professional bureaucracies and the historic marginalization of mental health in schools (Osher, 2002).

Quinn, M. M., Osher, D., Hoffman, C. C., & Hanley, T.V. (1998). Safe, drug-free, and effective schools for ALL students: What Works! Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2004). Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools Step by Step Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Poduska, J., Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (In Press). Coordinated and Individualized Services within Systems of Care. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services.

Woodruff, D., Osher, D., Hoffman, C., Gruner, A., King, M., Snow, S., & McIntire, J. (1999). The role of education in a system of care: Effectively serving children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998 Series, Volume III. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.

Osher, D.M., Quinn, M.M., Hanley, T.V. (2002). Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance: A National Agenda for Success. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11:1, 1-12.

Creating and Sustaining Collaborative School Mental Health Initiatives
Osher and his colleagues have examined the challenges to developing, transporting, and building to scale collaborative school mental health initiatives (Osher & Hanley, 1995; Furlong, Paige, & Osher 2002; Rappaport et al., 2002) and systems of care (Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, 1999-2001). In addition, for the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services, Osher convened expert panels and synthesized knowledge regarding effective approaches to school-based mental health (1992-3), prevention (1994-6), school safety and violence prevention (1997-1998), and effective evidence-based practices (2002) (e.g., Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson, 2004).

The Turnaround Model utilizes a high-quality implementation and impact evaluation that supports collaboration among the partners, ensures the continued investment of funders, and provides the base for scaling up.

Osher, D. & Hanley, T. (1995). Implications of the National Agenda to Improve Results for Children and Youth with or At Risk of Serious Emotional Disturbance, Special Services in the Schools, 10:2, 7-36.

Flaherty, L. & Osher, D. (2002). History of Mental Health in Schools in the United States. In M.D. Weist, S. Evans, & N. Tashman (Eds.) School Mental Health Handbook, (11-22). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing Company.

Furlong, M., Paige, L.Z. & Osher, D. (2002). The Safe School, Healthy Students Initiative: Lessons Learned from Implementing Healthy Youth Development Programs, Psychology in the Schools, 40 (5), 447-456.

Rappaport, N., Osher, D., Dwyer, K., Garrison, E., Hare, I., Ladd, J., Anderson-Ketchmark, C, (2002). Enhancing Collaborations Within and Across Disciplines to Advance Mental Health Programs in Schools. In M.D. Weist, S. Evans, & N. Tashman (Eds.), School Mental Health Handbook, (107-118). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishing Company.

Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (1999-2001) Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health (Series 1-3). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and the Center for Mental Health Services.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2004). Safe, Supportive, and Successful Schools Step by Step Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Strategies for Evaluation of Projects
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) will serve as the primary evaluator of Turnaround for Children. In this capacity, AIR will work closely with staff to develop a systematic understanding of the program development and implementation process and its associated outcomes.

About AIR
AIR is a highly regarded, independent, not-for-profit behavioral and social science research organization that was established in 1945. AIR has extensive capacity in evaluation, education, mental health, and social services. AIR has done major evaluation work for federal agencies (e.g., the U. S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice), states (e.g., California, New York), and foundations (e.g., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Knight Foundation). AIR’s overriding goal is to use the best science available to bring the most effective ideas and approaches to enhancing everyday life.

Approach to Program Evaluation
AIR’s approach to evaluation is collaborative, with the ultimate outcome not a single report or result, but an ongoing, sustainable self-evaluation by those implementing initiative activities. AIR employs the principles of “empowerment evaluation,” that is, we combine consultation on program implementation, collection and use of data for continuous quality improvement, with independent outcome evaluation. This approach produces reliable summative outcome data while also assisting initiative leaders in developing measurement routines that will allow them to use data-based decision-making to continuously improve their programs, even after the formal evaluation is complete.

AIR uses a logic modeling approach to discern the key components of an intervention or initiative and the steps from activities to outcomes. From logic models, we derive the measurement targets for the evaluation.

The logic model approach to evaluation emphasizes program development through long-term strategic planning related to all aspects of design and implementation. AIR will work closely with stakeholders (program administrators and staff, program participants, related mental health professionals, and the local community) to systematically collect information about resources available to and used by program initiatives, program activities, and program outcomes. The goal of this process is two-fold: to evaluate outcomes of those served (both individuals and the schools/communities) and to further program development. Ultimately, a shared understanding among stakeholders of program goals is achieved through this process, which in turn drives further program development, as well as targeted marketing and implementation.