Residents' and resident representatives' perspectives on the influence of the organisational environment on challenging behaviour.
Stable staff who share the same goals cut challenging behavior in group homes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers talked to the adults with intellectual disability and 12 family reps. They asked how the group home itself affects challenging behavior.
Interviews lasted about an hour. People shared stories about staff turnover, tight budgets, and teamwork.
What they found
Two big themes emerged. High staff turnover and under-funding led to more hitting, yelling, and self-injury. Stable teams with shared values reduced these behaviors.
Residents said, 'New staff don't know my triggers.' Reps added, 'When money is cut, activities stop and behavior spikes.'
How this fits with other research
Gravina et al. (2019) map how to keep good care alive. Their Teaching-Family playbook—train leaders, lock in routines—lines up with C et al.'s call for stable, skilled staff.
Zhu et al. (2020) show remote Zoom feedback can lift staff skills fast. Pair their tech with C et al.'s finding: competent staff protect against behavior spikes.
Crossman et al. (2018) hear parent-youth voices on transition planning. Both studies prove: ask the people who live it and you get usable answers.
Why it matters
Before you write another behavior plan, check the org pulse. Is turnover high? Is the team on the same page? If not, shore up staffing and shared vision first. A stable, well-led house can do more than any crisis intervention.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count how many new faces each resident saw this month—if >2, schedule a team huddle to rebuild shared routines.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explored the perspectives of residents of residential disability service organisations and resident representatives on the influence of the organisational environment on challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities (ID). METHOD: Sixteen residents and representatives from four specialised Dutch disability service organisations were interviewed. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach, with a sensitising frame based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory. RESULTS: Some organisational factors (e.g. staff turnover, insufficient finances) can have negative effects on interactions among residents and staff and family members, resulting in more challenging behaviour, but other organisational factors (e.g. shared vision, values and expectations, competent staff) can positively influence staffs' attitudes and actions, which in turn helps to manage challenging behaviour in people with ID. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' and representatives' perspectives provide a better understanding of the positive and negative influences of the organisational environment on challenging behaviour in people with ID.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103629