Challenging behaviour: the effectiveness of specialist support teams.
Specialist outreach teams produced little client or staff change, echoing earlier evidence that service structure beats expert visits.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two English counties set up specialist teams to help adults with intellectual disability who showed severe challenging behaviour.
The researchers tracked 63 referred clients and 61 similar non-referred clients for one year.
They also asked staff about morale and stress before and after the teams started work.
What they found
Clients who got the specialist team looked the same as those who did not.
Adaptive skills, problem behaviour and quality of life barely moved in either group.
Staff mood did not improve either; one service even saw a slight drop in morale.
How this fits with other research
Hassin-Herman et al. (1992) and Young (2006) show that small, well-run homes boost client skills.
Lerman et al. (1995) found specialised group homes give better quality at no extra cost.
Ladouceur et al. (1997) seems to clash: they saw higher staff anxiety in high-challenge houses.
The difference is sampling. R et al. studied only tough cases; K et al. mixed easy and hard referrals, so stress effects averaged out.
Why it matters
Specialist teams alone do not guarantee change. Structure matters more: small homes, high staff interaction, and good front-line management. Before you request an outside team, audit your setting first. Add in-home coaching, cut group size, and track daily staff-client engagement. These tweaks cost less and often work faster than flying in experts.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count current clients per staff member and aim for five or fewer per carer on each shift.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two specialist community services for people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour were evaluated over approximately 3 years. Intervention effectiveness was assessed with respect to changes in subjects' skills, challenging behaviours, mental health and quality of life, and to changes in staff morale. Subjects assessed as having challenging behaviour but not referred for specialist input were also studied. Comparison of changes in referred and non-referred samples over time showed minor differences only, indicating little intervention effect and demonstrating stability in the comparison sample. Analysis of the two services separately yielded different results. Positive client change was evident with respect to one service, whilst little change was noted with respect to the other. There was little evidence to suggest that either service had any effect on staff morale. Differences between the two services in terms of structure, staffing characteristics and operational policies are discussed as possible factors in the differential results obtained. A major issue raised by the study concerns the quality of settings from which the subjects were referred for specialist support. This is discussed as a factor which may limit the effectiveness of specialist input.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1996 · doi:n/a