Focus on interaction: the use of an Individualized Support Program for persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.

Carla et al. (2009) watched how staff used a new planning tool called the Individual Support Program.

The tool was meant for adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities living in a large home.

Staff wrote short-term goals and long-term goals for each adult, then the researchers counted and coded them.

The plans had very few short-term goals.

Most long-term goals only talked about social interaction and little else.

Staff still liked the process and said it helped them think about the person, even though it took more time.

Maggio et al. (2023) ran a similar case-series design with autistic adults who also have ID. They set work goals in a sheltered art shop and saw gains in hours worked and self-help. Their goals were wider than just interaction, showing the same tool can cover more life areas when you ask for it.

Gandhi et al. (2022) audited transition IEPs for high-school students with autism. Like Carla et al., they found too few goals and a narrow focus. The pattern repeats: if the form does not force breadth, teams write only safe, social goals.

Ferguson et al. (2021) took a different path. Instead of better paperwork, they taught social skills directly to minimally-verbal adults with ID. All five adults learned new interaction moves, proving that when interaction is the real need, teaching beats planning alone.

Your ISP or IEP template should have a line that says "write at least five short-term goals" and another that says "include goals outside social skills." Without those prompts, teams default to tiny, interaction-only plans. Try it in your next plan meeting and see the difference.