Regulating behavioral procedures for individuals with handicaps: review of state department standards.
State rules for behavioral procedures are still a mixed bag—check both DD/MR and education departments before you treat.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors read every set of state rules that govern behavioral procedures for people with disabilities. They looked at 80 different documents from DD/MR and special-education departments.
They did not test kids or run trials. They simply cataloged what each state said you must, can, or cannot do when you use behavioral interventions.
What they found
DD/MR departments gave long, detailed checklists. Special-education departments gave short, vague lines.
Some states required a licensed psychologist to sign off on any punishment plan. Others barely mentioned punishment at all. No two states looked the same.
How this fits with other research
Joyce et al. (1988) saw the same patchwork three years earlier when they asked states how they diagnose autism. Together the two studies show that state agencies have never spoken the same language.
van Timmeren et al. (2016) jumped ahead 25 years and found that states now tie behavioral services to Medicaid autism waivers. The 1991 rules did not mention funding; the 2016 survey shows money now drives the rules.
Weston et al. (2018) reviewed 45 DRO studies. Every one of those studies had to follow the uneven rules that Fields et al. (1991) mapped. The policy mess quietly shapes which treatments get tested and published.
Why it matters
Before you write a behavior plan, pull up your state’s DD/MR and education rules. They may clash, and the stricter one wins. If you move or supervise across state lines, print both sets of rules and compare them side by side. Treat the difference like you would a different baseline: assess it, plan for it, and document that you followed it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Search ‘[your state] developmental disabilities behavior intervention standards’ and save the PDF in your client folder.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We reviewed standards (i.e., mandatory policies or recommended guidelines) from 39 state departments of special education and 41 state departments of developmental disabilities/mental retardation (DD/MR) to determine how they addressed the use of behavioral procedures. Results indicated that many standards described procedures to change behaviors of individuals with handicaps and identified ways to regulate usage. Major findings were that (a) standards from state departments of DD/MR addressed behavioral procedures more frequently than standards from special education departments; (b) many standards addressed procedures to decrease, but not increase, behavior; (c) several standards identified safeguards to clients' rights, such as prior approval requirements and periodic review of behavioral procedures' effects; (d) some standards prohibited and/or restricted the use of specific procedures, such as those judged to be aversive; (e) about one-fifth of special education standards and two-thirds of DD/MR standards described staff training requirements for using some procedures; and (f) relatively few standards used decision models to select behavioral procedures. Implications of these findings for policy makers, service providers, and future research efforts are discussed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1991 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(91)90023-l