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

Study: Hawken, Macleod, & Rawlings (2007)

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 (or being at high risk for) emotional or behavior difficulties based on their receipt of at least 2 office discipline referrals, teacher referral for additional behavioral support, and evidence of problem behavior throughout the day in multiple settings.  



Age/ Grade



Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Described as a group instead of as individuals (see below- Other relevant descriptive characteristics).







12 students participated in this study. Ten of the participants were boys, and 2 were girls. Two students from ethnic minority backgrounds participated in this study, and 8 of the 12 qualified for free or reduced lunch. One student received special education services in reading at the time of the study. Each of the students included in the study did not engage in severe problem behavior, and did engage in a range of problem behavior that included talking out, making inappropriate comments, and failing to complete work (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007).

Training of Instructors: The interventionist (BEP coordinator) was a paraprofessional at the school. No additional information about the background, experience, training, and/or ongoing support of the interventionist is provided.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? No

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity of implementation was assessed by the first author on 3 randomly selected school days. Permanent products were examined, and behavior team meetings were observed. The main components for which fidelity was checked included permanent products (check-in, check-out roster, DPRs, excel spreadsheets), whether the students attended morning check-in, whether teachers provided feedback to students throughout the day, whether students checked out at the end of the day, whether parents initialed/signed that they had reviewed the DPR, and whether the BEP coordinator collected and summarized BEP outcome data for decision making (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007).

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: There was over 90% fidelity for four of the five BEP components. The parent signature component had 36% fidelity.

Measures Targeted: Data Unavailable

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group






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 goals of the BEP program is to reduce problem behavior. One of the clearest/most trackable indicators of problem behavior is office discipline referrals.


Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Partially 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): Comparison of the differences of baseline and intervention means was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Analysis of level, trend, and variability was also assessed.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Group 1 reduced the average number of office discipline referrals from 7.5 ODRs per month during baseline to 3.67 office discipline referrals per month during intervention. Group 2 reduced the average number of office discipline referrals from 3.25 per month during baseline to 1.75 office discipline referrals per month during intervention. Group 3 reduced their office discipline referrals from 4.3 per month during baseline to 2.67 office discipline referrals per month during intervention. Group 4 reduced their average number of office discipline referrals per month from 2 during baseline to 1.5 during intervention. The baseline phases for each group showed slightly increasing trends. The intervention phases for each group had moderate degrees of variability, although the intervention phases for each group were less variable than the baseline phases for each group (Hawken, MacLeod & Rawlings, 2007).

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).