Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO)

Study: Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner (2008)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

The Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO) is a tier 2 behavior intervention designed primarily to improve students' mild to moderate problem behavior. BEP/CICO provides a structure for positive adult contact to be made with the student throughout the day. The students identified for the intervention check-in with the BEP/CICO coordinator at the start of each school day, and checkout with the coordinator before leaving school. At check-in, the students are provided with a Daily Progress Report (DPR) that lists the school wide expectations and a place to rank student behavior in corresponding columns. Teachers rank the student at specified blocks of time throughout the day (i.e. each class period in secondary schools; each subject area block of time in elementary schools, etc.), and provide corrective feedback and/or positive reinforcement. At check-out at the end of the day, the BEP/CICO coordinator totals the percentage of points earned to determine whether each student has met their individual goal for the percentage of points on the DPR available. If the student meets their goal, they receive a reinforcer. Students take their DPR to show to their parents and obtain a parent signature, and return it the following day at morning check-in. 

This program is intended for use in grades kindergarten through high school. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, English language learners, and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The area of focus is externalizing behavior which includes: physical aggression, verbal threats, property destruction, noncompliance, high levels of disengagement, disruptive behavior, social behavior, and, most broadly, behavior that is maintained by peer or adult attention.

Where to Obtain: Guilford Press 

Address: 72 Spring St. New York, NY 10012

Phone: (800)- 365-7006


Those interested in implementing the program can obtain a copy of Crone, Hawken, & Horner's "Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program" from Guilford Press for $34.85. This book includes all necessary information for implementing BEP/CICO at a school, as well as suggestions for how to best adapt the program for each school's unique setting. The cost of implementation is variable, based on how schools choose to create the DPR, as well as reinforce positive behavior. At the low end of costs, schools can choose to create a simple half sheet piece of paper for the DPR, and provide activity or attention reinforcers. At the other end of expenses, schools can choose to have the DPR on triplicate carbon copy paper, and provide a range of tangible reinforcers. The book provides examples of DPRs to assist schools in creating their own, as well as suggestions for reinforcers and guidelines for choosing effective reinforcers. The basic materials required for implementation are a BEP coordinator to facilitate check-in/check-out and record student data, the DPR form, and reinforcers for students. The coordinator can be a person already on staff, such as a paraprofessional or school counselor, who can dedicate approximately 10 hours per week to facilitation of the BEP/CICO.   

This program is designed for use with small groups of approximately 15 students and no more than 10% of school population.

One coordinator is needed to implement and facilitate the program, however, because BEP is a school wide program, it involves all of the included students' teachers.

The program is affiliated with a broad school or classwide management program.

The program does not require technology.

Four to eight hours or more of training are required for the interventionist. The coordinator can be trained in the intervention with a half day or full day training. On-going support for the first few weeks of implementation is helpful, but not essential for the program's success.

The interventionist must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals or instructions for implementation.

The manual was developed following implementation of the intervention in two middle schools and one elementary school in Oregon. Fern Ridge Middle School in Elmira, Oregon developed the first version of this intervention which was then manualized and pilot tested with an additional middle school and an elementary school. These schools were chosen because they had school-wide/Tier 1 positive behavior support in place and had at least 10% of their student population at risk for engaging in more severe problem behavior. 

Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support through contacting university personnel.


Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified as having/being at high risk for emotional or behavioral difficulties based on frequent visits to the office for disruptive behavior, as well as teacher reports of students' disruptive behavior.



Age/ Grade



Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Trevor

3rd grade


Native American

Not reported

Receiving services in reading and math at time of the study

Not reported

Trevor engaged in noncompliant behavior, refused to complete academic tasks, hid under furniture, and refused to answer questions from adults (Todd et al., 2008).

Case 2: Chad

1st grade



Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Chad's behavior included talking out and talking to peers during instruction. Chad started taking 20 mg of Ritalin daily after session 12 of the baseline of this study, but was not initially on any medication (Todd et al., 2008).

Case 3: Kendell

2nd grade



Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Kendell's problem behavior included talking out, poking peers, giggling, and making drumming noises on the top of his desk (Todd et al., 2008).

Case 4: Eric




Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Eric's problem behavior included talking to peers, making noises, and talking out during circle time (Todd et al., 2008).

Training of Instructors: The interventionist (CICO coordinator) was a staff member at the school. Additional information about the interventionist is not provided.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? No

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was assessed by the school's Student Services Team (SST), which met once every 2 weeks to review student data for CICO. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was also conducted by having two data collectors conduct the observations at the same time. The number of agreements per session were divided by the number of disagreements per session and multiplied by 100% (Todd et al., 2008).

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity assessed by the SST was determined to be satisfactory by the standards set by the SST. Mean total agreement for IOA was, on average, at least 94% (Todd et al., 2008).

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence


Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Observations of problem behaviors (20 minute partial interval recording).

IOA was condcuted for observations of problem behavior in both the baseline and intervention phases. There was at least 94% total IOA for each phase.

Program focus is on decreasing problem behavior throughout the day, so observations conducted in a variety of class periods is highly relevant to the program focus.

The problem behavior of non-target (control) students was assessed 2-5 times during baseline and 1-6 times during the intervention to provide a composite index of classroom problem behavior. None of the students observed as control peers received any of the CICO intervention components.


Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group




Administrative Measure

Relevance to program focus

Office Discipline Referrals

One of the main goals of CICO is to provide positive supports to encourage appropriate behavior. Office discipline referrals are punishing and often exclusionary. If the CICO intervention is successful, it is likely that office discipline referrals would decrease as appropriate student behavior increases.


Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): The differences between baseline and intervention means were used to assess the effect of the intervention. Graphs of observation data for problem behaviors were also visually inspected for level, trend, and variability. The number of office discipline referrals in the baseline and intervention phases were also compared for each participant.  

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: For observations of problem behaviors: During baseline, 30% of Trevor's intervals included problem behavior, while during intervention, Trevor averaged 14% of intervals with problem behavior. Chad had problem behaviors in an average of 26% of baseline intervals, but decreased this percentage to 8% of intervals during the intervention. Kendell had 34% of baseline intervals with indicators of problem behavior, and this percentage dropped to 13% of intervals during the intervention. Eric had 27% of baseline intervals with problem behavior, but decreased to 12% of intervals with problem behavior during intervention. The baseline phases for Trevor, Chad, and Kendell showed signs of moderately increasing trends. Each of the participants had a relatively high degree of variability during baseline. During intervention, Trevor and Eric had strong signs of decreasing trends, and low variability. Chad had a flat trend during intervention, with a slightly increasing and variable trend in the last five days of data collection. Eric's intervention phase was the shortest, but showed a moderately decreasing trend with lower variability than found during baseline (Todd et al., 2008).

For office discipline referrals: Office discipline referrals were measured as number of referrals received per day. Trevor received 0.17 office discipline referrals per day during baseline, and 0.16 office discipline referrals per day during intervention. While this does not reflect a significant change, it is important to note that Trevor received only 1 office discipline referral during the intervention phase. Chad and Eric each had 0.15 office discipline referrals per day during baseline, and 0.0 office discipline referrals per day during intervention. Kendell had 0.10 office discipline referrals per day during baseline, and 0.0 office discipline referrals per day during intervention (Todd et al., 2008).   

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Small groups (n = approx. 15)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: Yes

Behavior Education Program Fidelity of Implementation Measure (BEP-FIM) Scoring Guide

School:                                                            Date:                           Pre:                 Post:              

District:                                                            State:                                      Data collector:                    

Evaluation Question

Data Source

P =  permanent product;

 I = Interview; O= Observation



1. Does the school employ a BEP coordinator whose job is to manage the BEP (10-15 hours per week allocated)

(0 = No BEP Coordinator, 1 = BEP coordinator but less than 10 hours per week allocated, 2= BEP Coordinator, 10-15 hours per week allocated)

Interviews with                     I

Administrator & BEP



2. Does the school budget contain an allocated amount of money to maintain the BEP ?(e.g. money for reinforcer, DPR forms, etc. (0 = No,  2 = Yes)

BEP Budget                         P / I



3. Do students who are referred to the BEP receive support within a week? (0 = more than 2 weeks between referral and BEP support, 1 = within 2 weeks, 2 = within a week)

Interview                              P / I

BEP Referrals & BEP Start dates




4. Does the administrator serve on the BEP team or review BEP data on a regular basis? (0 = no, 1 = yes, but not consistently, 2 = yes)

Interview                                 I



5. Do 90% of BEP team members state that the BEP system has been taught/reviewed on an annual basis? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview                                 I


6. Do 90% of the students on the BEP check-in daily?(Randomly sample 3 days for recording)

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP recording form                 P



7.  Do 90% of students on the BEP check-out daily?(Randomly sample 3 days for recording)

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP recording form                 P


8. Do 90% of students on the BEP report that they receive reinforcement (e.g. verbal, tangible) for meeting daily goals? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview students on BEP      I


9. Do 90% of students on the BEP receive regular feedback from teachers? (randomly sample 50% of student DPR’s across 3 days) (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP Daily Progress Reports     P


10. Do 90% of students on the BEP receive feedback from their parents? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP Daily Progress Reports      P


11. Does the BEP coordinator enter DPR data daily? 

(0 = no, 1 =  1-4 x a week, 2 = daily)

Interview                                   I


12. Do 90% of BEP team members indicate that the daily BEP data is used for decision-making? 

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview                                   I



Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional 4-8+ hours of training

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 11 studies

Cheney, D., Flower, A., & Templeton, T. (2008). Applying Response to Intervention Metrics in the Social Domain for Students at Risk of Developing Emotional or Behavioral Disorders. Journal of Special Education, 42, 108-126.

Cheney, D., Stage, S. A., Hawken, L., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C. & Waugh, M. (2009). A Two-Year Outcome Study of the Check, Connect, and Expect Intervention for Students At-Risk for Severe Behavior Problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 226-243.

Ennis, R.P., Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N.C., & Johnson, M.L. (2012). Secondary Prevention Efforts at a Residential Facility for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Function-Based Check-In, Check-Out. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 29, 79-102.

Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., & Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to Intervention: Examining Classroom Behavior Support in Second Grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288-310.

Kauffman, A.L. (2008). Stimulus Fading within Check-In/Check-Out. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (8580).

Lane, K.L., Capizzi, A.M., Fisher, M.H., & Ennis, R.P. (2012). Secondary Prevention Efforts at the Middle School Level: An Application of the Behavior Education Program. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(1), 51-90.

Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D. E. (2011). Comparing a Behavioral Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) Intervention to Standard Practice in an Urban Middle School Setting Using an Experimental Group Design. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 31.

Swain-Bradway, J. L. (2009). An Analysis of a Secondary Level Intervention for High School Students at Risk of School Failure: The High School Behavior Education Program. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (10262).

Swoszowski, N. C. (2010). Function-Based Responding to Check-In/Check-Out for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in a Residential Facility. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Georgia State University Digital Archive. (62).

Swoszowski, N.C., Jolivette, K., Fredick, L.D., & Heflin, L.J. (2012). Check-In/Check-Out: Effects on Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders with Attention or Escape-Maintained Behavior in a Residential Facility. Exceptionality, 20, 163-178.

Turtura, J. E. (2011). An Evaluation of a Secondary Intervention for Reducing Problem Behaviors and Improving Academic Outcomes in Schools. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (11146).