Some promising dimensions for behavioral community technology.

Hart et al. (1980) wrote a how-to guide, not an experiment. They asked: what rules should behavior analysts follow when they build programs for whole towns, not just one kid?

The paper lists six design checks. One: use local places, not lab rooms. Two: train residents to run the show. Three: pick cheap tech anyone can buy.

The team did not collect data. Instead they gave a blueprint. The core idea: if the town owns the plan and the tools are simple, the change lasts after the experts leave.

Israel (1978) set the stage. That paper said most behavior-analysis fights are really fights about how tight theory should stick to tech. Hart et al. (1980) took the next step and showed how to weld the two at town size.

Whitehouse et al. (2014) tested the plan with teens who have intellectual disability. Project TEAM taught the youths to spot barriers in their own school and fix them. Knowledge went up, but problem-solving stayed flat. The study keeps the “resident capacity” spirit yet shows real-life gains can be uneven.

Allen et al. (2016) used mixed-reality headsets to coach teachers of students with autism. The tool is fancy, but the goal matches B et al.: build local skill so outsiders can step back. Results were strong, proving high-tech can still honor the 1980 rules if it is wrapped in local coaching.

You can copy the six checks before your next grant. Start by walking the neighborhood: where do people already meet? Swap your $3,000 tablet app for a $20 doorbell if that is what staff will keep using. Train one parent, one teacher, one store owner to collect data and run reinforcers. When they do it without you, you have met the 1980 standard—and your effect might stick long after the funding ends.