A renaissance in residential behavior analysis? A historical perspective and a better way to help people with challenging behavior.
Redesign the entire house reward system instead of writing one-room plans.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Holburn (1997) looked back at decades of residential programs for people with severe behavior challenges.
The paper says most fixes only swap furniture or add staff. It argues we must redesign the whole reward system instead.
What they found
The author found that small room-level changes never last. Only a full contingency overhaul can create durable behavior change.
How this fits with other research
McClannahan et al. (1990) traced 200 years of institutional cycles and warned that moving people to the community can fail if supports are weak. Holburn (1997) agrees but pushes further, saying the entire house reward structure must be rebuilt.
Mazur et al. (1992) tested small hospital houses and saw no gain in engagement or problem behavior. Their null result backs Holburn (1997): tinkering with size or décor is not enough.
O’Neill et al. (2025) extends the idea. They show that when staff use coercive rules, clients fight back with countercontrol. This hidden process explains why S’s full-system redesign is needed.
Why it matters
If you consult in a group home, stop writing single-room behavior plans. Map who gets attention, escape, and tangible items across the whole house. Shift those contingencies first, then teach skills. You may cut problem behavior without adding more staff.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Draw a contingency map of your house: list what each resident gets for problem behavior and for appropriate behavior, then rebalance the payoffs.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
After a slow start, the popularity of applied behavior analysis for people with severe behavior problems peaked in the 1970s and was then battered down by the effects of methodological behaviorism, the aversives controversy, overregulation, and the inherent limitations of congregate living. Despite the ethical, technical, and conceptual advancements in behavior analysis, many people with challenging behavior live in futile environments in which the behavior analyst can only tinker. A radically behavioristic approach has become available that has the power to change these conditions, to restore the reciprocity necessary for new learning, and to bring residential behavior analysts more in contact with the contingencies of helping and teaching. The approach is consistent with alternatives that behaviorists have suggested for years to improve the image and effectiveness of applied behavior analysis, although it will take the behaviorist far from the usual patterns of practice. Finally, the approach promotes its own survival by promoting access to interlocking organizational contingencies, but its antithetical nature presents many conceptual and practical challenges to agency adoption.
The Behavior analyst, 1997 · doi:10.1007/BF03392765